U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–847 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–992

DECLINE OF THE WEST COAST GROUNDFISH

FISHERY

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JANUARY 16, 2001

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

BILL FRIST, Tennessee 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MARK BUSE, Republican Staff Director 

ANN CHOINIERE, Republican General Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on January 16, 2001 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Wyden .................................................................................. 1

WITNESSES

Bodnar, Steve, Executive Director, Coos Bay Trawlers’ Association, Inc. .......... 58

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Brown, Ralph, Groundfish Trawler and Pacific Council Member ....................... 67

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68

Coenen, Neal, Watershed Advisor to Governor Kitzhaber ................................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Darm, Donna, Acting Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, National 

Marine Fisheries Service ..................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Eaton, Bob, Executive Director, Pacific Marine Conservation Council ............... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Eder, Michelle Longo, Sablefish Fisherman’s Wife, Vice President of Newport 

Fishermen’s Wives, and Member of the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries ....................................................................................................................... 63

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66

Fujita, Rodney M., Ph.D., Environmental Defense ............................................... 37

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Goblirsch, Ginny, Marine Extension Agent with Oregon Sea Grant, President 

of Newport Fishermen’s Wives, and Board Member of the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries ...................................................................................... 43

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Golden, Jim, Acting Director, Marine Resources Program, Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife .............................................................................................. 102

Submitted material .......................................................................................... 103

Griffith, John, Commissioner, Coos County Board of Commissioners ................ 92

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 93

Hooley, Hon. Darlene, U.S. Representative from Oregon .................................... 5

Husing, Onno, Director, Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association ........... 94

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95

Leach, Donna, Homemaker and Fisherman’s Wife ............................................... 79

Leach, Tom, Commercial Fisherman ..................................................................... 79

Submitted material .......................................................................................... 81

Leipzig, Peter, Executive Director, Fishermen’s Marketing Association ............ 111

Lone, Jim, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management Council ............................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association .... 70

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72

Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington, prepared statement ........ 3

Robinson, William, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries, 

Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Accompanying 

Donna Darm ......................................................................................................... 26

Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator from Oregon, prepared statement .......... 4

Thompson, Terry ...................................................................................................... 110

Varanasi, Dr. Usha, Science Director, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 

National Marine Fisheries Service ..................................................................... 23

APPENDIX

Eder, Michele Longo, Argos, Inc., letter dated February 14, 2001, to Hon. 

Ernest F. Hollings ................................................................................................ 113

(1)

DECLINE OF THE WEST COAST GROUNDFISH 

FISHERY 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2001

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORATION, Newport, OR. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m. at the Hatfield 

Marine Science Center, 2030 SE Marine Science Drive, Hon. Ron 

Wyden, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. I want to welcome all of you today to this hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. 

Last year, when the Senate Commerce Committee approved a 

buy-back bill for the southeast swordfish disaster, I conditioned my 

support on the Committee helping communities in Oregon with the 

groundfish disaster that this and so many of our coastal communities are experiencing. Chairmen McCain and Hollings promised 

to support my efforts, and today’s hearing delivers on that promise. 

I’m very pleased, also, that Congresswoman Hooley is here to 

join me. She is the Congresswoman from this area and has been 

a terrific advocate for coastal communities. 

I’ll have a short statement, and then I want to read a letter from 

my colleague, Senator Smith. Many Oregonians may not know it, 

but we have some very good news in that Senator Smith will be 

joining the Commerce Committee later this year. It is very, very 

helpful to have him on the Committee. He wanted to be here today, 

but his schedule simply wouldn’t allow him. 

As all of you know, the health and well-being of Oregon’s coastal 

communities are to a great extent shaped by our having a sustainable supply of groundfish. Generating this supply is obviously easier said than done. But I believe that the policies of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service are failing the groundfish industry on the 

Oregon Coast. The agency’s failure to put in place common sense 

policies for groundfish have been harmful to both the economic and 

the environmental well-being of Oregon. 

Oregon’s fishing families want to fish. And, they want to do so 

in a way that is sensitive to the long-term health of the resource. 

They have families to raise and need to earn money to do so. And, 

they are willing to fish in a way that focuses on good stewardship 

of the resource. The fishing families that I talked to on the Oregon 

Coast are more than willing to support strong conservation policies. 

2

But, they are right to expect that their government, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, specifically, will pursue policies that keep 

them from landing on the bankruptcy roles. 

Now is an ideal time for the National Marine Fisheries Service 

to change course and to be a smarter, more efficient partner in 

working with Oregon communities on the groundfish issue. There 

is a new Administrator at the agency who, with a fresh start, can 

pursue more sensible and creative policies that help the families 

that are represented in the audience today. 

And, I’d like to suggest four areas where the Administration can 

get going and going quickly. First, in June, the U.S. Congress 

passed a $5 million emergency appropriation bill, because the West 

Coast fisheries were in a disaster situation. As far as I can tell, not 

a dime—not a dime—has actually made it out on the ground to the 

community. This is just totally unacceptable. And, I expect to hear 

from the National Marine Fisheries Service this afternoon how 

they are going to turn this situation around. You can’t have a disaster identified in the middle of last year and still not have the 

money out on the ground today. 

Second, there needs to be a significant change in which the agency gathers the research and the scientific data that formulates 

their policies. It is simply not being done with the focus on good 

science that is necessary today. For example, with respect to 

groundfish, data is only collected once every 3 years. It misses the 

near shore areas, and it doesn’t utilize fishing families. We expect 

to see changes at the National Marine Fisheries Service with respect to the way they gathered this data. 

Third, I believe that the agency has been dragging its feet on implementing a policy to deal with overages. All of you know we have 

seen too often the disgraceful picture of thousands of fish being 

wasted, brought on to shore and being wasted, even though Oregon 

now has the dubious honor of leading the country in hunger. This 

is absolutely unacceptable. In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service assured me that they were going to have a new policy so 

as to not waste so much of this precious resource. It has not been 

implemented today, and I expect to hear from the National Marine 

Fisheries Service how they are going to go about doing it. 

Finally, I want to see the National Marine Fisheries Service get 

more of its people out of Washington D.C. and Seattle where they 

sit behind computers, and out on the ground helping the communities. As far as we can tell, Oregon coastal communities have no 

one to consult with and get feedback about progress, or the lack 

thereof. The National Marine Fisheries Service had a significant 

increase in their budget in the last year, and I want to hear today 

from the agency how they will get some of their key staffers out 

of Washington D.C. and the Seattle office and on the ground where 

they can actually work to monitor the progress on projects that 

meet this sustainability agenda. 

So, there is much to do. What we’re going to do, from the standpoint of the procedures this morning, after Congresswoman Hooley 

has spoken, and I’ve read Senator Smith’s letter, our witnesses will 

take about 5 minutes each for questions. Then, we’re going to have 

an open microphone, at the close of the hearing, for those who 

aren’t testifying. For those of you who would like to speak, if you 

3

would, sign up with the staff. They’ll be in the back, Mary 

Gautreaux and other staff members. 

The hearing record also is going to be open for 10 days, if anybody would like to submit written testimony. We’ll have opportunities for you to do that, as well. If you’re not on the witness list, 

and you want to submit something in writing, we’d like you to visit 

with Ms. Gautreaux in the back quickly. 

Also, Senator Murray wanted to be here, because Washington 

State has been very hard hit. However, she submitted a statement 

for the record instead. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murray follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

First I would like to thank Senator Ron Wyden and the Commerce Committee for 

holding today’s hearing on the West Coast Groundfish crisis. I hope the hearing will 

help generate new ideas and solutions to address the declines in this fishery. As you 

know, this crisis has had serious negative impacts on communities in Washington, 

Oregon and California. I greatly appreciate the leadership the Senator from Oregon 

has shown by calling for and hosting today’s field hearing. 

Last year we made some progress in addressing this crisis. I am pleased the fiscal 

year 2001 budget includes $2.225 million for West Coast observers. Working together with Senators Wyden, Gordon Smith, Boxer and Feinstein, we secured $5 

million in emergency funding to assist families and communities dependent on the 

groundfish fishery. In addition, the fiscal year 2001 omnibus spending bill includes 

an exception for fixed-gear sablefish to the moratorium on individual fishing quotas. 

This will allow safer, more efficient fishing for this sector of the fishery. 

At the same time, I am concerned these steps, while important, are not enough 

to address the crisis at hand. Many of the small, coastal communities with businesses and families dependent on the groundfish fishery have already been hard hit 

by downturns in other natural resource dependent industries, such as timber and 

the salmon fishery. I look forward to reviewing the testimony provided at today’s 

hearing. As the 107th Congress progresses, I will maintain my high level of interest 

in this issue and my support for solutions to provide relief. I am also interested in 

longer term solutions on how to avoid such crises in the future. Thank you.

Now before we hear from Congresswoman Hooley, let me read 

you the very helpful letter and testimony sent by Senator Smith. 

‘‘Dear Senator Wyden: Thank you for holding a field hearing on 

the West Coast groundfish disaster. Although I’m unable to be in 

Newport on the day of the hearing due to prior scheduling commitments, I hope your hearing will bring more attention to the needs 

of this important fishery. 

Over the last 4 years, you and I have worked cooperatively in the 

U.S. Senate to secure more federal resources in an effort to provide 

for better long-term management of the West Coast groundfish 

fishery. As you know, this has not been an easy task. Too often, 

the federal obligations related to Oregons’s commercial fisheries 

have been overshadowed by other national resources priorities. It 

is unfortunate that it has taken a federal fishery disaster declaration to begin to bring the needed attention and resources to the 

West Coast groundfish problem. 

Please submit my attached written statement on the subject for 

the official Committee record. Once again, thank you for securing 

this important field hearing. I look forward to joining you on the 

Senate Commerce Committee in the new Congress and renewing 

our efforts to assist Oregon Coast’s coastal communities while protecting and enhancing our ocean resources for future generations.’’

4

Without objection, we’ll put Senator Smith’s statement into the 

record in its entirety. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s field hearing on the status of one 

of Oregon’s most important fisheries, West Coast groundfish. Like you, I am deeply 

concerned about the economic impacts on Oregon’s fishing-dependent towns caused 

by recent harvest restrictions. As a newly appointed member of the Commerce Committee, I hope to continue working closely with you to secure needed federal assistance and to restore stability to Oregon’s commercial fishing industry. 

Today we are here to learn more about the causes and effects of the precipitous 

decline of the West Coast groundfish fishery. Experts in the field can point to many 

factors that have led to an apparent decline of certain species in the groundfish complex—from oceanic temperature changes to overfishing in certain instances. While 

natural and human activities have likely both played a part, it is the federal government alone that must bear primary responsibility for the current disaster. Since the 

Americanization years of the 1970s, the management of our nation’s fisheries has 

been entrusted to federal agencies. Regrettably, in too many cases, past administrations and congresses have left fishery managers under the Department of Commerce 

without the necessary resources to gather accurate data on the fish populations and 

life cycles. It is unfortunate that it takes a catastrophe, like the one we now have 

in the groundfish fishery, to bring needed federal attention to the situation. 

In my estimation, a long-term solution to the problem will require an increased 

federal commitment to groundfish stock assessments. NOAA Fisheries’ models 

would be much more credible if they were backed up by annual, rather than triennial, groundfish surveys. Sound management decisions cannot be made in a vacuum of accurate data. The Department of Commerce should budget—and the Congress should appropriate—substantial increases for data collection so that management decisions are based on credible science. Whenever possible, NOAA should work 

cooperatively with industry to gather information by chartering industry vessels. A 

carefully implemented federal observer program should add much to our knowledge 

as well. 

In the intermediate term, we clearly need to reduce overcapacity in the groundfish 

fleet. While securing federal funds for vessel and permit buyback problems is an uphill battle in the Congress, it is not an insurmountable challenge—provided there 

is broad agreement in the industry over how to implement a buyback program. I 

hope that the fishing industry will be able to overcome differences in gear type and 

vessel size to reach a consensus buyback plan that would result in the orderly exit 

of excess capacity out of the fleet. 

In the immediate term, we must continue to address the community assistance 

needs that have developed as result of the loss of revenue from the groundfish resource. While I was pleased that we were able to secure $5 million in emergency 

funds last year to help meet the urgent socioeconomic needs of fishing-dependent 

towns, I know it was just a beginning. In the new Congress, we must renew our 

coalition of West Coast Senators to secure another installment of community assistance funding. I look forward to working with state agencies and the OSU extension 

service to continue their vital assistance services to coastal communities. 

Finally, there are important policy areas, such as tax reform and IFQ programs, 

I believe should be carefully considered by the new Congress as well. 

Clearly, this is not a problem that developed overnight—nor is it one that can be 

remedied overnight. There is much work to be done on the part of all us—the Congress, NOAA, industry representatives, environmentalists, and other stakeholders, 

to respond to this crisis before it is too late. Not only is it our challenge to enhance 

and protect the groundfish resource for future generations, we must also ensure that 

a viable fishing industry—with skilled fishermen, vessel suppliers, and seafood processors—does not disappear from Oregon’s coastal communities in the process. 

With this in mind, I look forward to reviewing the testimony of all of today’s witnesses. I hope this field hearing will add to our understanding of the problem and 

ultimately lead to the resolution of this federal fishery failure. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

I’d just like to note for the record that it will be very helpful for 

the people of Oregon to have Senator Smith’s influential voice on 

5

this key Committee. I’m very pleased that he’ll be joining the Committee. 

Senator WYDEN. So, let us turn now to Congresswoman Hooley 

who, as I said earlier, again and again goes to bat for Oregonians 

on the Coast. 

And Congresswoman, we’ll have whatever statement now that 

you choose to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DARLENE HOOLEY,

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON 

Congresswoman HOOLEY. First of all, thank you, Senator Wyden, 

for having this hearing. And you’ve talked about the three issues 

that we’ve talked a lot about in this community; and that is, you 

know, what do we do in research, how do we get better jobs, how 

do we get help to the community, and what to we do for overages. 

Thank you so much for coming out today. And again, this situation is an emergency situation here. It involves all the fishing fleet 

on the Oregon Coast. 

Over the last few years, as all of you know, there have been significant changes in the federal government policy on groundfish 

harvest. As you know, these changes have brought on economic difficulties for families, for communities, and ultimately for our state. 

The situation is serious; and the problems we face, though, are not 

impossible to solve. And that’s why we’re here today. 

My colleague, Senator Wyden, and I have been working to improve the economic situation of the fishing industry in Oregon, but 

we have a long ways to go. I’d like to thank Senator Wyden for the 

leadership he’s shown on this issue. Field hearings of a U.S. Senate 

Committee, such as this, are rare. And it is a testament to his dedication that he has convinced his colleagues that this issue is so important that it requires a special hearing. 

This hearing is a real opportunity that we must seize on and 

really look at how do we work together, how do we come together. 

And this is not a time—although it’s real easy to point fingers, I 

think it’s a time that we have to look at how do we come together 

on this issue and cooperatively get this job done. 

It is my hope that when we leave this hearing today we will have 

a better idea of what the solutions are and how to solve them. But 

because this is an official hearing of the U.S. Senate, the words you 

say will be carried back to the Chamber to effect deliberation on 

this issue. Your voices will be heard, not just in this room, but in 

the halls of the U.S. Congress. 

I pledge to do my best to ensure that all of my colleagues in the 

House of Representatives come to understand our problems here 

and the action that needs to be taken in this 107th Congress. 

Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Congresswoman Hooley. 

I know your schedule is tight, and we welcome you to stay for 

as long as you can. 

Let’s have our first panel come forward, Donna Darm, National 

Marine Fisheries Service; Neal Coenen, Office of Governor 

Kitzhaber; and Jim Lone, Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

6

Congresswoman HOOLEY. While they’re coming, I’d like to add 

another word. I’ve spent a lot of time at the Coast. I was here a 

couple times in November, December, and now in January. Thank 

you, once again, for the wonderful weather you’ve brought. We’re 

going to get a lot of people moving here, if they come down and see 

this kind of weather. 

Senator WYDEN. We welcome all of you. 

Ms. Darm, why don’t you begin. As you could—you could tell, I 

obviously have strong feelings about the policies of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. And I want to just note, before you begin, 

that because you are new that the concerns I have were not raised 

while you were the sheriff on the job. That’s one of the reasons why 

I think now is an ideal time for a shake-up and an effort to make 

some changes. 

We welcome your testimony, and please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA DARM, ACTING REGIONAL

ADMINISTRATOR, NORTHWEST REGION, NATIONAL MARINE 

FISHERIES SERVICE 

Ms. DARM. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. And I appreciate you working with my schedule to make sure that I could 

be here today. 

My name is Donna Darm. I’m the Acting Regional Administrator 

for the Northwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

And I do have a brief prepared statement that I’d like to read, and 

then I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is an important commercial 

and recreational fishery. Until recent years, the over 80 species 

that are managed under the Fishery Management Plan have been 

available to harvesters for most of the year and filled market gaps 

by providing flow of product, when West Coast fisheries were 

closed. 

The groundfish fishery presently is in crisis. It is over capitalized, and numerous groundfish stocks have been depleted by a combination of natural and human factors, pushing allowable catches 

down to a level that cannot sustain the present fleet. In addition, 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, there must be more conservative 

management for the seven species that have been declared overfished. The result is even more conservative management for fisheries that target other healthier stocks but incidentally encounter 

the overfished species. Solutions to this crisis will require a longterm commitment to rebuilding stocks through improving both our 

research and our management efforts. 

Annual commercial landings of all non-whiting groundfish 

peaked at 112,000 metric tons in 1982. Since 1989, those landings 

have decreased every year, with the sharpest decrease being in the 

most recent years. Since the 1990’s, we’ve seen the landings fall by 

another 50 percent from approximately 60,000 metric tons to 

31,000 tons in 2000. Revenues have also fallen from about $80 million to $42 million. And for 2001, revenues will likely continue to 

fall, perhaps as low as $29 million, as the industry faces even more 

complex regulations and quotas designed to protect those overfished species. 

7

Nearly a year ago today, the Secretary of Commerce declared the 

groundfish fishery a commercial fishery failure, due to a fishery resource disaster. Recreational fishermen, their communities, and 

support industries have also suffered from this disaster. 

The groundfish crisis highlights several fishery management concerns. While the initial declines may have been caused by an ocean 

regime shift that lowered productivity, these declines were not detected for some time, and harvest rate policies were based on assumptions of higher productivity. Limited scientific understanding 

and inadequate resources for research and monitoring hampered 

the agency’s ability to provide timely forecasts of the need to scale 

back on allowable catches. Each year, harvest rates have been 

based on prevailing scientific information, stock assessment models, fishery management program goals, and Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements. At the time, the harvest rates that were set were 

deemed reasonable and responsible, given accepted scientific understanding around the world and the productivity estimates used in 

other national and international fisheries. 

We don’t know for certain why the West Coast groundfish stocks 

appear to have lower productivity than similar stocks elsewhere, 

nor do we understand completely how the health of groundfish populations is linked to changes in the environment. We do know that 

there has been a decline in the basic productivity of the California 

current, since the late 1970’s, that has correlated with a major 

ocean regime shift and an abnormally high number of El Nino 

events. It’s likely that these climate changes have contributed to 

the decline in recruitment of many groundfish species, particularly 

rockfish, which may have a life span of as long as fifty to a hundred years. 

In spite of the fact that Pacific Coast groundfish harvest rates 

have been reduced through state and federal management efforts, 

the situation remains serious today. New stock assessments on previously unassessed groundfish species may result in the need for 

further harvest restrictions. Our challenge will be to protect and 

rebuild the most seriously depleted stocks, while minimizing adverse economic and social effects on fishing communities. 

To respond to the crisis, we are: (1) increasing the collection of 

scientific data and research; (2) improving management of the fishery by reducing overcapacity and by protecting sensitive habitat 

from the effects of fishing; and (3) providing assistance to fishery 

participants and affected communities through financial programs. 

In fiscal year 2001, the Northwest Science Center groundfish 

budget was doubled to about $4.25 million. This increase will provide funding for the whiting pre-recruit and slope trawl surveys 

that have been conducted for the past 2 years with temporary 

funds. In addition, funds will be used for the transition of many 

West Coast groundfish survey and assessment responsibilities from 

the Alaska Science Center to the Northwest Science Center and to 

increase the frequency of surveys from every 3 years to annual surveys. We’re also assessing whether more frequent and precise assessments are needed to rebuild stocks and achieve a sustainable 

fishery. 

The NMFS 2001 budget also includes just over $2 million for a 

West Coast groundfish observer program. An observer—an obVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
8

server program will allow us to start addressing the major shortcomings in groundfish management, lack of information on bycatch, 

and total mortality in the fishery. 

Senator, I see that the red light is flashing so——

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t you go ahead and finish, Ms. Darm. 

Ms. DARM. Okay. The Council recently adopted a Strategic Plan 

and concluded that the highest priority for achieving an economically viable groundfish fishery at reduced harvest levels is to reduce harvesting capacity to a point where it matches the productivity of the groundfish stocks. The Plan recommends at least a 50-

percent reduction in the number of vessels in all sectors of the 

groundfish fleet. In November, the Council took a step in that direction by recommending a permit stacking program for the limited-entry, fixed-gear fishery. 

We support the Council’s efforts to reduce capacity and will work 

with the Council to find creative ways to do this, while minimizing 

the adverse effects on fishing communities. We also support the 

Council’s process for considering marine protected areas. Protecting 

key habitat area further—furthers the immediate goal of rebuilding 

overfished groundfish stocks and provides longer-term benefits by 

maintaining fully functioning ecosystems that contribute to the stability of groundfish populations. Because the designation of such 

reserves may be controversial, development should be initiated by 

the Council with ample opportunity for public input. 

In response to the disaster in the West Coast groundfish fishery, 

Congress appropriated $5 million to the affected industry and communities. These funds may be used for assessing the economic and 

social effects of the commercial fishery failure, restoring the fishery, and preventing a similar failure in the future, as well as assisting fishing communities. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service has completed a spending 

plan, in consultation with the Governors, for that $5 million. It’s 

in review within the Department of Commerce. And the next step 

will be to receive grant requests from the states. The three states 

have proposed to use these funds for industry outreach, job retraining, fishing community diversification, and cooperative industry research. 

In conclusion, Mr. Senator, I recognize that serious problems remain, but I am cautiously optimistic about the future of the 

groundfish fishery. Our first priority must be to continue to protect 

overfished stocks, increase our scientific understanding, and support efforts to remain financially solvent during the rebuilding 

process. 

We now know more about current climate effects on groundfish 

stocks and recognize that harvest levels may remain low for a long 

time, before stocks are fully rebuilt. I’m confident that we can work 

collaboratively with the Council, with the States, with Coastal 

Tribes, and with the public to manage the changes in a way that 

takes into account the needs of fishery participants and communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address this today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Darm follows:]

9

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONNA DARM, ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, NORTHWEST REGION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify today regarding management of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. I am 

Donna Darm, Acting Regional Administrator for the Northwest Region, National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is an important commercial and recreational 

fishery. The flow of product throughout the year from the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery keeps many processors and fishery participants in business throughout the 

year. The over 80 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP), until recent years, have been available to harvesters most 

of the year and have filled the gaps in the market by providing product flow when 

product from other West Coast fisheries was not available. 

The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is in a crisis. The fishery is overcapitalized 

and numerous groundfish stocks have been depleted by a combination of natural 

and human factors, pushing their allowable catches down to levels that cannot economically sustain the present fleet structure. NMFS has mounting concerns that 

fisheries and other human activities are exerting significant pressures on the marine ecosystem. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires more conservative management for 

the seven species that have been declared overfished. This has resulted in additional 

restrictions not only for fisheries on the overfished stocks, but also for fisheries that 

target on other, healthier stocks that incidentally encounter overfished species. Finally, natural climatic cycles in the Pacific Coast ecosystem in which Pacific Coast 

groundfish live are affecting groundfish productivity and complicating our ability to 

measure human impacts on the fish populations. Solutions to this crisis will require 

a long-term commitment to rebuilding the fishery through improving both research 

and management. 

From 1980 through 1999, annual commercial landings of all non-whiting groundfish peaked at 112,000 metric tons (mt) in 1982, but from 1989 on, landings have 

decreased every year with the sharpest decreases being the most recent. Since the 

mid-1990’s we have seen landings fall by 50 percent from approximately 60,000 mt 

to 31,000 tons in 2000. Ex-vessel revenues have similarly declined from over $80 

million to $42 million. Projections for 2001 indicate that revenues will continue to 

fall, perhaps to as low as $29 million, depending on the ability of the industry to 

fish under a complicated set of regulations and quotas designed to protect overfished 

species. To put this figure in perspective, we estimate that at least $10 million in 

revenue is necessary to keep 55 trawl vessels in business. As a result of these 

trends, nearly one year ago today, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) declared 

a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource disaster under Section 312(a) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The declaration of a commercial fishery disaster 

cleared the way for Congress to appropriate $5.0 million in disaster assistance funds 

for those commercial groundfish fishery participants whose fishing activities and incomes have suffered. Nor has the commercial fishery been the only sector to suffer 

from this disaster. Recreational fishermen, their communities and support industries have been severely affected as well. 

The groundfish crisis has highlighted a number of fishery management concerns. 

While initial declines may have been caused by an ocean regime shift that lowered 

productivity, these declines were not detected for some time and harvest rate policies were based on assumptions of higher levels of productivity. Limited scientific 

understanding and inadequate resources for research and monitoring limited the 

agency’s ability to provide timely forecasts of the need to scale back allowable 

catches. Each year harvest rates were based on prevailing scientific information and 

stock assessment models, FMP goals, and Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. At 

the time, harvest rates were deemed reasonable and responsible given the accepted 

scientific understanding around the world and the productivity estimates used in 

other national and international fisheries. 

We do not know for certain why the West Coast groundfish stocks appear to have 

lower productivity than similar stocks elsewhere nor do we understand completely 

how the health of groundfish populations is linked to changes in the California current. We do know that starting in the late 1970’s there has been a decline in the 

basic productivity of the California current that is correlated with a major ocean regime shift. During this period there have also been an abnormally high number of 

El Nino events. It is likely that these changes have contributed to the decline in 

recruitment of many groundfish species, particularly long-lived rockfish which may 

live as long as 50 to 100 years. In retrospect, this incomplete understanding led to 

harvest levels that were not adequately conservative. 

10

In spite of the fact that Pacific Coast groundfish harvest has been reduced 

through state and federal management efforts, the situation remains serious. New 

stock assessments on previously unassessed groundfish species are likely to result 

in the need for further harvest restrictions given what we now know about stock 

productivity and other factors. Our challenge will be to protect and rebuild those 

stocks most seriously depleted, while minimizing to the extent possible adverse economic and social impacts on fishing communities. 

We are undertaking three types of actions in response to the crisis in the groundfish fishery: (1) increasing the collection of scientific data and research; (2) improving management of the fishery by reducing overcapacity and protecting sensitive 

habitat from the effects of fishing; (3) and providing assistance to fishery participants and affected communities through financial programs. 

A key element in restoring stocks for a sustainable fishery, protecting the marine 

environment, and evaluating the social and economic impacts of potential management actions is a comprehensive research program that provides the needed scientific information and advice in support of fishery management decisions. Research 

and monitoring for Pacific Coast groundfish currently is done through complementary efforts of the three West Coast NMFS Fisheries Science Centers, the three 

coastal state fishery agencies, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(PSMFC), and several academic institutions. NMFS and PSMFC federally-funded 

research and monitoring efforts that totaled nearly $6 million in 1999. This funding 

level allows us to determine the status of about 6 stocks each year, and stock assessments have been competed for 26 of the 82 groundfish species under federal management. Sixteen of these assessments are adequate enough to allow determination 

of the species’ status. Of these 16 stocks 7 have been determined to be overfished, 

requiring the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to submit rebuilding 

plans that meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act rebuilding requirements. The ‘‘unknown’’ status of the majority of groundfish stocks leaves a significant possibility that others 

may be overfished as well. 

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (Northwest Science Center) has lead responsibility for coordinating West Coast groundfish research. In Fiscal Year (FY) 

2001, the Northwest Science Center groundfish budget was doubled to about $4.25 

million. This increase will provide funding for the whiting pre-recruit and slope 

trawl surveys which have been conducted for the past two years using temporary 

funds. In addition, funds will be used to support the transition of many West Coast 

groundfish survey and assessment responsibilities from the Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center to the Northwest Science Center. The transition should provide for improved 

integration with existing West Coast NMFS groundfish programs in a manner that 

will achieve significant efficiencies and allow us to expand those activities. In addition, we are assessing whether more frequent and precise assessments are necessary 

to rebuild stocks and achieve a sustainable fishery. 

For the first time, the NMFS FY2001 budget includes just over $2 million for a 

West Coast groundfish observer program. This increase will provide resources to 

begin to address one of the major shortcomings of the groundfish management process—the lack of information on bycatch and total mortality of groundfish in the fishery. In cooperation with PSMFC, the Council, and the 3 coastal states we are moving quickly to develop a statistically sound at-sea monitoring program and to deploy 

observers to collect needed bycatch information. We will also seek opportunities to 

make other improvements in our fishery data collection, including implementation 

of electronic logbooks. 

The Council recently adopted a Strategic Plan and concluded that the highest priority for achieving an economically viable groundfish fishery at reduced harvest levels is to reduce harvesting capacity to a point where the harvesting capacity 

matches the productivity of the groundfish stocks. The Plan recommends a reduction 

of at least 50 percent in the number of vessels in all sectors of the groundfish fleet, 

including limited entry trawl and fixed-gear and open access vessels. In November, 

the Council took an initial step in that direction by recommending a permit stacking 

program for the limited entry fixed-gear fishery. NMFS supports the Council Plan 

and will work with the Council to find creative ways to reduce harvest capacity 

while minimizing adverse impacts on fishing communities. NMFS supports the 

Council’s process to consider use of marine reserves, or marine protected areas. Protecting key habitat areas furthers the immediate goal of rebuilding overfished 

groundfish stocks and provides longer term benefits by maintaining fully functioning ecosystems that contribute to the stability of groundfish populations. Because the designation of such reserves may be controversial, development should be 

initiated by the Council and provide for open public input. 

In response to the disaster in the West Coast groundfish fishery, Congress appropriated $5.0 million in federal assistance to the affected industry and communities. 

11

Oregon and California each will receive 35 percent of these funds and Washington 

will disperse the remaining 30 percent. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act such 

funds may be used for assessing the economic and social effects of the commercial 

fishery failure, restoring the fishery and preventing a similar failure in the future, 

and assisting fishing communities. The Secretary also must determine that funded 

activities will not expand the size or scope of the commercial fishery failure. Finally, 

the law requires that the federal share of the cost of any funded activity may not 

exceed 75 percent of the cost of that activity. 

Each state has made a similar proposal to use the funds for industry outreach, 

job retraining, and cooperative industry research. We have summarized these proposed activities into a West Coast groundfish spending plan that will be sent to 

Congress as required under the supplemental appropriations law, and we are currently working with the states on how best they can meet the 25 percent matching 

requirement. 

In conclusion, I recognize that serious problems remain, but am cautiously optimistic about the future of the groundfish fishery. We must continue to protect overfished fish stocks, increase our scientific understanding, and support efforts to restructure the fishery and fleet that allow the participants and support industries to 

remain financially solvent during the rebuilding process. We now know more about 

current climate effects on the groundfish stocks and recognize that harvest levels 

may remain at low levels for a long time before stocks are fully rebuilt, and that 

alone will cause significant changes in the structure of the fishery. However, we can 

work collaboratively with the Council, States, Coastal tribes and the fishing industry to manage that change in a way that takes into account the needs of fishery 

participants and fishing communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address this very important West Coast fishery.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, and we will have some questions in 

a moment. 

Mr. Coenen? 

Mr. COENEN. Yes. Senator Wyden——

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t you pull that——

Mr. COENEN. I’m sorry. 

Senator WYDEN. Pull that toward you. 

STATEMENT OF NEAL COENEN, WATERSHED ADVISOR TO

GOVERNOR KITZHABER 

Mr. COENEN. Senator Wyden, Congresswoman Hooley, thank you 

for coming to Newport today to obtain information on the deepening groundfish crisis along the West Coast. This will bring added 

attention to the crisis and provide a needed opportunity for a wide 

range of fishery participants and the public to voice their concerns. 

For the record, my name is Neal Coenen, and my current position is Watershed Adviser to Governor Kitzhaber, who supports 

these remarks. Formerly, I was the Marine Program Manager for 

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for 12 years. 

Because of the expertise and perspective of the invited and expected witnesses today to speak before you, I will not try to describe specific causes or even specific management measures needed to address the crisis. Rather, I would like to speak to the sense 

of urgency needed to manage the crisis and Oregon’s federal funding priorities to do so. 

I think it fair to say that the urgency of directly affected participants is not widely shared outside fishery management circles. Perhaps that is so because this fishery failure and disaster came on 

progressively and not with the drama of, say, a hurricane or a 

flood. 

Progressively, incentives have been created to expand the fishery 

but not modified to limit excesses. Perversely, research on the West 

12

Coast was never adequately funded, meaning management risks 

were high but poorly understood. In part due to the New England 

cod fishery collapse, Congress enacted the nation’s fishery Law in 

1996 calling for sustainable fisheries. However, insufficient attention, it may be argued, was given to how, in a timely and progressive way, sustainable fisheries may be brought about before disasters. 

In the context of the West Coast fishery failure, the need for urgency is that if corrective measures are not developed promptly and 

implemented, the transition process will be longer and more painful for people than necessary. Outcomes will occur by default, not 

purposeful design. Sadly, Congress and management agencies may 

only then be able to conclude that disaster response was poorly 

managed and executed. 

To be sure, many current participants will not find a place in a 

smaller, future, sustainable fishery. However, survivors need desperately to have some idea now that the future will become structured and expectations shaped in the next 2 to 4 years, not a decade or more. Fortunately, the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

has developed a Strategic Plan to work specifically with the fleet 

to manage the transition. Make no mistake, however, that this job 

will be easy or inexpensive. 

As to the resources needed, Oregon has several general priorities 

to consider as basic starting points. Our first priority is the Oregon 

Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program. With the existing emergency appropriation of $5 million for disaster relief, Oregon’s share 

will provide $1.75 million in federal funds in direct aid for people 

training to exit the fishery. We seek to expand the Oregon program to $6 million for each of 

4 years under the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, where match is 

not required. The State of Oregon faces a $700 million budget 

shortfall projected for the 2001/2003 biennium. We have proposed 

to maintain our general fund groundfish research commitment— this Governor’s current budget proposal to the Legislature—over 

this period. But we would not be able to support the match required for an adequate Oregon Assistance Program of $6 million. 

Our second set of priorities really exists as a group with no absolute rank order of priority, at the moment. They’re really a package 

for discussion and a starting point. 

One critical one is assistance for the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council and its support. We’re suggesting $500,000. One of the 

most significant practical realities for needed change is for the 

Council to immediately carry out its Strategic Plan. Management 

measures often take several years to complete. The Council needs 

added resources for the foreseeable future, if progress is to be 

made, developing several management measures each year, in addition to routine functions. 

Second, is an Observer Program, $5 million. Presently, we understand $2 million is funding the start of this program. The original 

request was $4 million. Several years of data will be needed before 

confidence can be placed on usable results. Inadequate funding, a 

slow start, and decreased fishery coverage is not cost effective in 

the long run. It simply drags out the uncertainty. We request a $5 

million added annual commitment for a total program of $7 milVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
13

lion. Within this each coastal state should receive $1 million to ensure an adequate program and to add a complimentary focus for 

each state on near shore fisheries management and research. 

Three, industry has and will continue to work on capacity reduction programs. An important point is that some level of significant 

federal funding will most certainly be needed to create momentum, 

so that a variety of market mechanisms, fees—ITQs, for example—

may truly produce desired reductions in capacity. 

Finally, Number 4, fisheries research, $12 million. A starting 

point would be $12 million to implement the National Marine Fishery Service Strategic Research Plan for the West Coast groundfish 

fisheries. While not the final word on research needs, the Plan details the extent of the work required. The sooner an adequate effort 

is created, the sooner information will flow to improve fishery assessment, recover stocks, and create confidence in sustainable management. 

Finally, Senator Wyden, thank you again for conducting this field 

hearing. Governor Kitzhaber’s Office looks forward to working with 

you and all members of Oregon’s delegation, as well as appropriate 

Congressional Committees, to address the groundfish crisis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coenen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NEAL COENEN, WATERSHED ADVISOR TO

GOVERNOR KITZHABER

Senator Wyden, and Members of the Committee, thank you for coming to Newport 

today to obtain information on the deepening groundfish fishery crisis along the 

West Coast. 

This will bring added attention to the crisis and provide a needed opportunity for 

a wide range of fishery participants and the public to voice their concerns. 

For the record, my name is Neal Coenen, and my current position is Watershed 

Advisor to Governor Kitzhaber, who supports these remarks. Formerly, I was the 

Marine Program Manager with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for 

twelve years. 

Because of the expertise and perspective of the invited witnesses, I will not try 

to describe specific causes or even specific management measures needed to address 

the crisis. Rather, I would like to speak to the sense of urgency needed to manage 

the crisis, and Oregon’s federal funding priorities to do so. 

I think it fair to say that the urgency of directly affected participants is not widely 

shared outside of fishery management circles. Perhaps that is so because this fishery failure and disaster came on progressively and not with the drama of say a hurricane or flood. 

Progressively, incentives have been created to expand the fishery but not modified 

to limit excesses. Perversely, research on the West Coast was never adequately 

funded, meaning management risks were high but poorly understood. In part, due 

to the New England cod fishery collapse, Congress amended the nation’s fishery law 

in 1996 calling for sustainable fisheries. However, insufficient attention, it may be 

argued, was given to how, in a timely and progressive way, sustainable fisheries 

might be brought about . . . before disasters. 

In the context of the West Coast groundfish fishery failure, the need for urgency 

is that if corrective measures are not developed promptly and implemented, the 

transition process will be longer and more painful for people than necessary. Outcomes will occur by default not purposeful design. Sadly, Congress and management 

agencies may only then be able to conclude that the disaster response was poorly 

planned and executed. 

To be sure, many current participants will not find a place in a future, smaller, 

sustainable fishery. However, survivors need desperately to have some idea now 

that the future will become structured and expectations shaped in the next two to 

four years . . . not a decade or more. Fortunately, the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council has developed a strategic plan for what specifically will need to be done to 

manage the transition. Make no mistake, however, that this job will be easy or inexpensive. 

14

As to the resources needed, Oregon has several general priorities to consider as 

basic starting points. 

Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program 

With the existing emergency appropriation of $5 million for disaster relief, Oregon 

will provide $1.75 million in federal funds in direct aid for people training to exit 

the fishery. 

We seek to expand the Oregon program to $6 million for each of four years under 

the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act where match is not required. The State of Oregon faces a $700 million budget shortfall projected for the 2001–2003 biennium. We 

have proposed to maintain our general fund groundfish research commitment over 

this period, but we would not be able to support the match required for an adequate 

Oregon assistance ($6 million) program. 

Management and Research Priorities 

Our second group of priorities include:

1. Pacific Fishery Management Council Support $500,000 

One of the most significant, practical realities of needed change is for the 

Council to move immediately to carry out its strategic plan. Management 

measures often take several years to complete. The Council needs added resources for the foreseeable future if progress is to be made developing several 

management measures each year in addition to routine functions. 

2. Observer Program $5 million 

Presently, we understand, $2 million is funding the start of this program; the 

original request was $4 million. Several years of data will be needed before 

confidence can be placed on usable results. Inadequate funding, a slow start 

and decreased fishery coverage is not cost effective in the long run. It simply 

drags out the uncertainty. We request a $5 million added annual commitment 

for a total program of $7 million. Each coastal state should receive $1 million 

to ensure an adequate program and to add a complimentary focus on near 

shore fisheries research and management. 

3. Industry has and will continue to work on Capacity reduction programs. An 

important point is that some level of significant federal funding will most certainly be needed to create momentum so that a variety of market mechanisms (fees and ITQs, for example) may truly produce desired reductions in 

capacity. 

4. Fisheries Research $12 million 

A starting point would be $12 million to implement the NMFS Strategic Research Plan for West Coast Groundfish Fisheries. While not the final word 

on research needs, the plan details the extent of the work required. The sooner an adequate effort is created, the sooner information will flow to improve 

fishery assessments, recover stocks and create confidence in sustainable management.

Finally, Senator Wyden, thank you again for conducting this field hearing. Governor Kitzhaber’s office looks forward to working with you and all members of Oregon’s delegation, as well as appropriate congressional committees to address the 

groundfish crisis.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much. And I also want to recognize that the Governor is not just the state’s leader in this area. 

He has been one of the country’s leaders with respect to taking on 

the question of sustainable fisheries. We appreciate your efforts 

and your representing him here today. 

Mr. COENEN. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Lone? 

STATEMENT OF JIM LONE, CHAIRMAN, PACIFIC FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. LONE. Thank you, Senator, and Representative Hooley. 

My name is Jim Lone. I’m the Chairman of Pacific Fishery Management Council. Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments 

related to the West Coast groundfish fishery. 

15

This is a challenging time for fishery management on the West 

Coast. Several important groundfish stocks are in trouble. By federal definition, seven species have been designated to be in an overfished condition, with lengthy rebuilding timeframes ranging from 

10 to 95 years. 

Three other major species have been determined to be significantly below a healthy population status, which is 40 percent of 

original biomass. And I’ve appended a one-page attachment that 

identifies those seven species that were overfished and the three 

that are determined to be unhealthy. 

In the year 2000, the Pacific Council notified the Governors of 

the three West Coast states of a potential disaster in the groundfish fishing industry, and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce declared 

a commercial fishery failure in the West Coast groundfish fishery. 

In response, Congress appropriated $5 million in disaster relief. 

The most likely cause of this crisis is the combined effects of the 

change in the ocean environment, inadequate scientific data collection and analysis, and a national policy that encouraged capital infusion into the fishing industry. 

Problems in the groundfish fishery have far-reaching impacts. 

Collateral local businesses also suffer consequences. Many small, 

local fishing businesses are in danger of failing this year or in the 

near future, and the national seafood supply is negatively affected. 

It is likely these negative impacts will continue for the foreseeable 

future. While economic estimates of total impacts are not currently 

available, it is safe to say the total is enormous. 

What can and should be done about this serious problem? The 

Council’s groundfish Strategic Plan offers the best hope for improving the fishery and preventing harm in the individuals and communities dependent on the resource. In 1999, the Council initiated development of a Strategic Plan to guide management of the West 

Coast groundfish fishery. This Plan was formulated to address current and future issues and concerns in the fishery. At its September 2000 meeting, after a series of public meetings, the Council 

adopted the Strategic Plan and approved a process for implementation of the Plan. I’ve also attached a document that identifies the 

various public hearings and processes that the Plan took, during its 

development. 

The Plan is intended to provide guidance for groundfish management in the year 2000 and beyond. It is intended to be a resource 

for Council efforts to rebuild depleted stocks and maintain healthy 

stocks. As a major feature, it provides guidance to reduce the size 

of the fishing fleet to a level that is both biologically sustainable 

for the resource and economically sustainable for the fishing community. The Plan also calls for conservative fishing policies, establishment of marine reserves, and better science. 

Overcapacity within the groundfish fleet is a paramount issue 

challenging the West Coast fishing industry and this Council. For 

years, national policy encouraged industry growth and development. As we Americanized the groundfish fishery, we did not recognize quickly enough we had achieved that goal. 

The Pacific Council initiated steps to inhibit growth in the fishery by establishing a groundfish license limitation program in 

1994. We also took steps toward better management of the sableVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
16

* The information referred to has been retained in the Committee files. 

fish fishery by developing an individual fishing quota, IFQ program. We delayed action on that program in response to strong signals from Congress. With the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, we lost 

the ability to implement an IFQ program. 

We are disappointed to see an extension of the moratorium on 

IFQ programs but are very encouraged and thankful for your efforts to provide an exemption for permit stacking in the West Coast 

sablefish fishery. We ask that you now help by supporting buyback 

programs and capacity reduction tools. 

The Strategic Plan’s vision for the future of the groundfish fishery assumes the Plan’s recommended actions will be fully funded 

and implemented. While the funding need is significant, the benefits from implementation of the Plan warrant this expense. We 

have not calculated the total amount needed for full implementation of the Plan and are exploring cooperative arrangements. However, it is certain additional congressional appropriations will be 

needed. We will be happy to provide a total estimate in the near 

future. At this time, we concur with the estimates of $500,000 in 

each of the next 3 years needed specifically for the Council to implement the Plan. Additional amounts will also be needed to fund 

West Coast research and data needs. 

And I’ve attached two letters that went back to D.C., one in 1998 

regarding the year 2001 financial requirements for the Science 

Centers, the Regions, and the Council, and a similar letter that 

went back just this week to D.C. specifying our needs for 2003/

2004.* 

The Council recognizes the transition to the future envisioned in 

the Plan will require major changes to the structure and operation 

of the fishery, which will certainly have short-term adverse effects 

on current participants and local communities. However, there is 

a darker vision, which could easily occur if we are not able to strategically alter the course of current management; that is, we could 

continue attempting to manage an overcapitalized fleet in the face 

of declining resource abundance and the necessity to meet stock rebuilding mandates. This will most certainly result in even shorter 

fishing seasons, smaller trip limits, higher discard rates, and the 

continuous inability to accurately account for fishery-related mortalities. 

Many people now actively fishing will not be able to meet their 

basic financial responsibilities and will be forced from the fishery 

by a governed economic demise or outright bankruptcy. Impacts to 

coastal communities dependent on groundfish fisheries will be disastrous. The Council and participating agencies will be overwhelmed by the need to implement short-term fixes to long-term 

problems, with little or no chance to focus on the underlying problems of the fishery or to development of a long-term management 

strategy. The Council’s Strategic Plan sets a course for steering 

clear of this squall. 

In summary, Senator Wyden, the Pacific Council faces a severe 

groundfish fishery problem in the near term, with 7 species requiring rebuilding over the next 10 to 95 years and several other stocks 

17

1See Table 1. 

2See Table 2. Strategic Plan Process Timeline and Schedule 

hovering at threshold levels. Because depleted species are mixed 

with healthy stocks, all groundfish fisheries will be impacted by 

management measures aimed at rebuilding depleted stocks. We 

firmly believe the Groundfish Strategic Plan will, over the long 

term, help to rationalize the groundfish fishery by addressing the 

major groundfish issues. 

As I noted earlier, to implement the Groundfish Strategic Plan, 

we will likely need legislation and financial support to help reduce 

the number of fishing vessels that harvest fish off the West Coast 

and to collect the necessary—excuse me—and to collect the necessary data for competent management. 

We appreciate the efforts and attention Congress has given to 

improve or guide our management, most notably your current efforts to allow implementation of permit stacking in our fixed gear 

sablefish fishery. We know there are many other interests throughout the Nation competing for your attention and funding, and we 

hope our comments to you today have been helpful. I will try to be 

responsive to any other information or any points you may need. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lone follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM LONE, CHAIRMAN, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT

COUNCIL

My name is Jim Lone. I am chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Pacific Council). Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments related to the 

West Coast groundfish fishery. 

This is a challenging time for fishery management on the West Coast. Several important groundfish stocks are in trouble.1 By federal definition, seven species have 

been designated to be in an overfished condition, with lengthy rebuilding timeframes ranging from 10 to 95 years. Three other major species have been determined to be significantly below (i.e., 60 percent below) healthy population status. 

In 2000, the Pacific Council notified the governors of the three West Coast states 

of a potential disaster in the groundfish fishing industry, and the U.S. Secretary of 

Commerce declared a commercial fishery failure in the West Coast groundfish fishery. In response, Congress appropriated $5 million in disaster relief. The most likely 

cause of this crisis is the combined effects of a change in the ocean environment, 

inadequate scientific data collection and analysis, and a national policy that encouraged capital infusion into the fishing industry. 

Problems in the groundfish fishery have far reaching impacts: collateral local 

businesses also suffer consequences; many small local fishing businesses are in danger of failing this year, or in the near future; and the national seafood supply is 

negatively affected. It is likely these negative impacts will continue for the foreseeable future. While economic estimates of total impacts are not currently available, 

it is safe to say the total is enormous. 

What can and should be done about this serious problem? The Council’s Groundfish Strategic Plan offers the best hope for improving the fishery and preventing 

harm to the individuals and communities dependent on the resource. 

In 1999, the Council initiated development of a strategic plan to guide management of the West Coast groundfish fishery. This strategic plan was formulated to 

address current and future issues and concerns in the fishery. At its September 

2000 meeting, after a series of public meetings,2 the Council adopted the Strategic 

Plan and approved a process for implementation of the plan. 

The plan is intended to provide guidance for groundfish management in 2001 and 

beyond. It is intended to be a resource for Council efforts to rebuild depleted stocks 

and maintain healthy stocks. As a major feature, it provides guidance to reduce the 

size of the fishing fleet to a level that is both biologically sustainable for the resource and economically sustainable for the fishing community. The plan also calls 

18

3The following letters document recent and future Council funding needs: 

(1) Letter of January 15, 2001 from Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, to Ms. Penny Dalton and Dr. William Hogarth, NMFS. 

(2) Letter of December 22, 1998 from Mr. Lawrence D. Six, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, to Dr. William Hogarth and Mr. Will Stelle, NMFS. 

for conservative fishing policies, establishment of marine reserves, and better 

science. 

Overcapacity within the groundfish fleet is the paramount issue challenging the 

West Coast fishing industry, and this Council. For years, national policy encouraged 

industry growth and development as we ‘‘Americanized’’ the groundfish fishery. We 

didn’t recognize quickly enough we had achieved that goal. The Pacific Council initiated steps to inhibit growth in the fishery by establishing a groundfish license limitation program that took effect in 1994. We also took steps toward better management of the sablefish fishery by developing an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. We delayed action on the IFQ program in response to strong signals from 

Congress. With the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, we lost the ability to implement an IFQ program. 

We are disappointed to see an extension of the moratorium on IFQ programs, but 

are encouraged and thankful for your efforts to provide an exemption for permit 

stacking in the West Coast sablefish fishery. We ask that you now help by supporting buyback programs and capacity reduction tools. 

The Strategic Plan’s vision for the future of the groundfish fishery assumes the 

plan’s recommended actions will be fully funded and implemented. While the funding need is significant, the benefits from implementation of the Strategic Plan warrant this expense. We have not yet calculated the total amount needed for full implementation of the plan, and are exploring cooperative arrangements. However, it 

is certain additional Congressional appropriations will be needed. We will be happy 

to provide a total estimate in the near future. At this time, we concur with estimates of $500,000 in each of the next three years needed specifically for the Council 

to implement the plan. Additional amounts will also be needed to fund West Coast 

research and data needs.3

The Council recognizes the transition to the future envisioned in the plan will require major changes in the structure and operation of the fishery, which will certainly have short-term, adverse effects on current participants and local communities. However, there is a darker vision, which could easily occur if we are not able 

to strategically alter the course of current management. That is, we could continue 

attempting to manage an overcapitalized fleet in the face of declining resource abundance and the necessity to meet stock rebuilding mandates. This will most certainly 

result in even shorter fishing seasons, smaller trip limits, higher discard rates, and 

the continuous inability to accurately account for fishery-related mortalities. Many 

people now actively fishing will not be able to meet their basic financial responsibilities and will be forced from the fishery by a governed economic demise or outright 

bankruptcy; impacts to coastal communities dependent on groundfish fisheries will 

be disastrous. The Pacific Council and participating agencies will be overwhelmed 

by the need to implement short-term fixes to long-term problems with little or no 

chance to focus on the underlying problems of the fishery or to develop a long-term 

management strategy. The Pacific Council’s Strategic Plan sets a course for steering 

clear of this squall. 

In summary, Senators, the Pacific Council faces a severe groundfish fishery problem in the near term, with seven species requiring rebuilding over the next 10 to 

95 years and several other stocks hovering at threshold levels. Because depleted 

species are mixed with healthy stocks, all groundfish fisheries will be impacted by 

management measures aimed at rebuilding depleted stocks. We firmly believe the 

Groundfish Strategic Plan will, over the long term, help to rationalize the groundfish fishery by addressing the major groundfish issues and helping move the fisheries toward recovery and prosperity. 

As I noted earlier, to implement the Groundfish Strategic Plan, we will likely 

need legislation and financial support to help reduce the number of fishing vessels 

that harvest fish off the West Coast and to collect the necessary data for competent 

management. We appreciate the efforts and attention Congress has given to improve 

and guide our management, most notably, your current efforts to allow implementation of permit stacking in our fixed gear sablefish fishery. We know there are many 

other interests throughout the nation competing for your attention and funding. We 

hope our comments to you today have been helpful, and we will try to be responsive 

to any other information or input you may need. Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

19

Table 1. Groundfish Stocks—Overfished or Depressed 

Species Status Rebuilding Timeframe 

Lingcod Overfished* (designated 

1999) 

10 years

Bocaccio Overfished (designated 1999) 38 years

Pacific Ocean Perch Overfished (designated 1999) 47 years

Canary Rockfish Overfished (designated 2000) 37 years

Cowcod Overfished (designated 2000) 95 years

Darkblotched Rockfish Overfished (designated 2001) To Be Determined

Widow Rockfish Overfished (designated 2001) To Be Determined

Shortspined Thornyhead Below Target Biomass** Not Applicable

Sablefish Below Target Biomass Not Applicable

Pacific Whiting Below Target Biomass Not Applicable 

* Stocks below 25% of virgin biomass. 

** Stocks below 40% of virgin biomass. 

20

Senator WYDEN. That’s very helpful. Let me thank you as well, 

Jim. 

I know the microphone is aggravating folks. I wonder if, because 

the acoustics in here are pretty good, we turn this off if people in 

the audience are going to be able to hear. 

Unidentified Audience Member: You’re okay. 

Senator WYDEN. Can you hear? 

Unidentified Audience Member: Yeah. 

Senator WYDEN. Let’s give it a try. Myself and Congresswoman 

Hooley will try to boom it up a little bit, because I know the back 

draft is hard to follow. 


116lone.eps
21

Ms. Darm, as you know, in June of last year, the Congress passed $5 million in emergency appropriations, because the West 

Coast fisheries were in a disaster. Yet, as of today, as far as I can 

tell, 7 months later, not one single dime has gotten out to these 

communities that the federal government has said are constituted 

a disaster. 

Now, this is just completely unacceptable to me, and I’m not 

clear from your testimony. Are you saying it’s the Governors’ fault, 

that the Governors didn’t send you some kind of application? 

I mean, we have been talking to the agency constantly. This was 

defined as a disaster. What is it going to take to get this money 

out? If you want to say it’s the Governors’ fault, I’d sure like to 

have you state that on the record. Because I can tell you it’s not 

the fault of Oregon’s Governor. 

Ms. DARM. No, Senator, I didn’t mean to imply that it was the 

Governors’ fault or anyone’s fault, for that matter. 

We did develop a spending plan, in coordination with the Governors of all of the coastal states. And that spending plan is now 

complete. The next step then will be to receive the grant proposals 

from the states. 

While we were in the process of developing the spending plan, we 

also worked closely with the states. And Neal may be able to supplement this some. I’m not sure if you’ve been involved in developing those grant proposals. 

But we have been working with the states on the grant proposals, what sorts of projects ought to be proposed, as well as how 

to deal with this requirement for matching funds. Because as Neal 

mentioned in his testimony, some of the states, particularly Oregon, are really strapped for funds, and so we have been trying to 

work out whether in-kind contributions, for example, can suffice for 

the matching funds. 

And I don’t know if—Neal, if you want to add something——

Senator WYDEN. Well, before we go into that, when will the 

money actually get out on the ground to the small communities? 

In fact, my staff was recently told it was going to get out this 

month. Now what you’ve described sounds like this is going to be 

like the marquis at the old movie house, where it says ‘‘Coming 

Soon,’’ and it just never seems to quite get there. If this is a disaster, we’ve got to get the money out to people. 

Ms. DARM. Assuming that we get the proposals and we’re able 

to process them, May is probably the soonest that we could expect 

to see money actually distributed. 

Senator WYDEN. So, it’s going to take a year? I mean, Congress 

passed this disaster appropriation in June of last year. And, you’re 

telling me on the Oregon Coast it’s going to be a year to get that 

money, even a small amount, to people on the ground? Do you 

think this is acceptable? Is this an acceptable way for NMFS to do 

business? 

Ms. DARM. Well, Senator, I’m not—I’m not familiar with all of 

the details—— Senator WYDEN. I’m just curious. 

Ms. DARM.—what’s going on in the planning but—— Senator WYDEN. This is just a question of, I think, common 

sense. You are the point person for our Region. Is it acceptable to 

22

you that it takes a year to get this money out to the communities 

that are hard-hit? We call it a disaster. The federal government 

didn’t say this is a garden-variety kind of, you know, let’s now fund 

the committee on acoustics and ventilation. 

I mean, the U.S. Congress said it was a disaster. Just tell me, 

yes or no, is it acceptable to you that it takes a year to get that 

money out? 

Ms. DARM. A year does seem like a long time. 

Unidentified Audience Member: Evasive. 

Senator WYDEN. It certainly does to me. 

We will follow this up with you. Because I can guarantee you I 

have heard from communities—I know we’ve been in contact with 

the state—that they have been trying to get this money for some 

time. I have not heard that now we’re waiting for grant applications and the like. 

But this is one of the areas in which I think NMFS has got to 

change course. Your agency had a doubling of its budget recently. 

So, on one hand, for the agency there is a doubling of funds; and 

for the people in these coastal communities, after Congress moves 

to get out disaster appropriations, you told us it’s a year to get a 

dime on the ground. You just can’t defend that in the communities 

that we represent. You just can’t. 

So I hope that we’ll see some changes. 

Unidentified Audience Member: Can I raise an objection? 

Senator WYDEN. No. This is a Senate hearing. We’re going to 

take your comments at the end. 

Let me, if I might, go to this question of research. Because I 

think that you said something encouraging. 

I had not heard before that you all would move the surveys to 

every year. And, as you know, the fishing families are very concerned about this issue. Recently, I had one of the fishermen tell 

me that in 1995 the population survey for yellowtail rockfish 

showed fewer than ever before. But then in 1998, NMFS found four 

times as many fish. And what the fishing family said is, ‘‘Look, the 

Atlantic stocks get surveyed constantly. They get surveyed pretty 

much every year.’’

And if I heard you correctly—and I had not heard this before—

this is going to be a change in the NMFS policy. Are you announcing today that groundfish stocks will, from this point on, be surveyed every year? 

Ms. DARM. I could ask Dr. Varanasi to speak on it more specifically. It’s not a change in policy. It’s a change in the funding that’s 

available to us to actually conduct the survey——

Senator WYDEN. You haven’t been doing it in the past. 

Ms. DARM. We haven’t had the funding to do more than the triennial surveys. Beginning this year, we will be able to do annual 

surveys. We received additional funding this year for those surveys. 

Senator WYDEN. How about the other changes in methodology, 

like looking at near shore areas and making sure that the fishing 

families are involved? These changes have been expressed to us, as 

well, as changes that are important in research. 

Ms. DARM. Would you mind if I asked Dr. Varanasi to join me 

at the table and answer the more specific questions? 

23

Senator WYDEN. Doctor, why don’t you come on forward, and 

we’ll get you a microphone. 

Doctor, why don’t you identify yourself for the record and your 

position at the agency. 

STATEMENT OF DR. USHA VARANASI, SCIENCE DIRECTOR, 

NORTHWEST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER, NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Dr. VARANASI. I am Dr. Usha Varanasi. I am Science Director for 

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, NOAA. 

The question was how are we going to increase data collection 

and the surveys. This year we are going to get more funding. There 

is the increase that was in the appropriation but also National Marine Fisheries Service is reprogramming some of our funds, giving 

us some more funding, so that we could slowly start—or I shouldn’t 

say reprogramming. I’m being a scientist. Sometimes I may not use 

the right word. They are reallocating some of our funding from the 

headquarter funds to do this work in the Northwest and the Southwest for integrating the surveys. 

So what we will be doing is we—we will continue our slope survey that we started with the—working with the charters that we 

had the last 2 years from the contract funds now to base funds. But 

we will have people dedicated for every year for the West Coast 

groundfish surveys. Because they will be now consolidated and 

done from the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. That allows us 

now to be starting every year. 

Senator WYDEN. So will the methodology be changed so as to 

look, for example, at the near shore areas and involve more of the 

fishing families, as well? 

Dr. VARANASI. We are going to try everything possible to increase 

and improve the methodology and—and try to work—first, what we 

are going to do is to do the surveys that we are doing right now 

already, on a regular basis. And then we will also be looking at all 

of the species that we need to work on. So there will be increased 

effort throughout the West Coast. 

Congresswoman HOOLEY. I just want to do a followup question 

for either one of you. And that is as we talk about increasing these 

to every year and doing a better job of research, there’s been a lot 

of people that—I mean, they fish every single day. They’ve been 

fishing here for years and years and years. Their families fished 

here, their fathers, their grandfathers. They know a lot about the 

area. They’ve also said, you know, ‘‘We’re willing to use our boats, 

if people want to come out on our boats, if they want to come do 

research or observe.’’

How much do you talk with—as you do this research—and I understand what you do is very scientific. But the people that go out 

and fish all the time and their families have been fishing for decades and decades. They have pretty good knowledge of what happens out there. 

How much do you talk to them? 

Dr. VARANASI. We talk to them. We have a scientist project. We 

need to increase. Definitely we need to increase. But we have 

begun working—over the last 2 or 3 years, we have tried to inVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
24

crease operating research. We have tried to use some of the vessels——

Congresswoman HOOLEY. So you actually—— Dr. VARANASI. We will have electronic logbook—— Congresswoman HOOLEY. Excuse me for just a moment. 

So NMFS actually puts people out in the field, and you sit down 

and talk with these fishing families? 

Dr. VARANASI. Not regularly. That is some—some of these things 

are going to be—now that we have a research plan that’s outlined, 

as well as how to incorporate working together, we are hoping that 

with this new funding that we can do a number of these things. 

Congresswoman HOOLEY. Will you be doing that? 

Dr. VARANASI. Part of it we will be doing some of the port—working with the port biologists and the fishing families. We will try. 

And—and we will be—just what I’m saying is we are going to increase surveys, and we are going to increase the outreach and 

working with people. 

Congresswoman HOOLEY. And I know that science is different. 

But I would encourage you to talk to these families that have been 

fishing for years. And there are not only captains, but there are 

also people that have the large fishing vessels, as well as the smaller fishing vessels. I think they have an enormous amount of information that might be helpful in your research. 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Darm, understand that the fishing families 

tell us that there’s nobody on the ground from the agency to consult with, which is why I wanted to emphasize I want you to get 

some of those folks out from behind the computers in Washington 

and Seattle and out in Coos Bay and Newport and in the community. 

I appreciate your concern here. But understand, Ms. Darm, that 

the words ‘‘try’’ and ‘‘hope’’ and the like, when the people of this 

community have watched again and again this agency not deliver, 

doesn’t provide a whole lot of solace. As I listen to you about the 

research changes, I hope that you will pursue the research changes 

in a more efficient and expeditious way than you have pursued getting the disaster money out. Because we’re looking now at a year 

to get the disaster money out. I was actually encouraged by your 

saying that you were going to do those surveys every year. Then, 

by the time Congresswoman Hooley had asked her very good questions, it was not clear to me at all what exactly is going to be done. 

So, I hope that the Senate Commerce Committee will not have 

to come back on the research question here in 6, 8 months and ask 

again has it, in fact, changed. In 6 or 8 months, concerning this research issue, I’ll say, ‘‘You got double the amount of money.’’ I’ve 

got to see that these research changes are being put in place, or 

get some people at NMFS who will do it; and just be that blunt 

about it. 

Congresswoman Hooley, I have some additional questions for Ms. 

Darm, but I know your schedule is tight. I think what I would like 

to do is let you ask questions. 

We have some Senate rules here to follow with respect to Congresswoman Hooley’s participation. 

Congresswoman, why don’t you write out questions that you 

would have. I think all of you know that Congresswoman Hooley 

25

and I work very closely on these matters. I want folks on the Coast 

to know we really appreciate her leadership, and we’ll comply with 

the Senate rules, as well. 

Ms. Darm, the question of overages, another area where there is 

substantial frustration, certainly on the part of this Senator, and 

on the part of this community, as well. The overage question is a 

fisheries version of the tobacco subsidy. It is just outrageous. What 

we have is this resource, regarded as precious, coming to shore and 

essentially being trashed. 

I have been trying since 1998 to bring NMFS kicking and 

screaming into setting up a program to make sure that that resource, consistent with sensible conservation policies, wasn’t wasted. In fact, the most recent communication we had is—the Pacific 

Council had approved the pilot plan and thought that there was 

going to be finally a process for getting under way. In the middle 

of last year, we got a letter from NMFS saying why that was unacceptable to the agency and still allowing for the waste of this resource in such a flagrant kind of way. 

What can you all tell us now about what you’re going to do on 

the issue of overages, so that we don’t continue to waste such a 

dramatic amount of the resource? I think that the agency owes the 

people on the Coast a straight response on this issue and when the 

program is going to get off the ground. 

Ms. DARM. This is an issue I have heard something about, and 

I understand that we have had continuous conversations about it. 

I know it’s something that you have been very interested in. 

My understanding of the concerns with getting an overage program into place immediately are that, first of all, 100 percent observer coverage would be ideal to have, if we were to institute this 

sort of an overage policy. We do have—I’m happy to say we do have $2 million this year—and I think Neal mentioned, as well, in his 

testimony—for an observer program. Even that level of funding will 

only put observers on about 10 percent of the vessels. So we are 

a long way yet from a hundred percent observer coverage. 

The other thing that is certainly getting the attention of the 

agency and the Council both, at this point, is rebuilding the overfished stocks. And at the moment, at least, that is our—that is our 

main priority, which is not to say that getting an overage policy in 

place or program in place is not also important. But our primary 

focus or primary priority, at this point, is to rebuild the overfished 

stocks. 

Finally, given the severely reduced limits, fishing limits, that are 

in place presently, the catch of all fish has been reduced dramatically, including the overage catches. So it’s not as pressing of a 

problem, at this time. 

I realize that whole answer doesn’t really address your continued 

concern about it. I’m afraid I don’t have a really good answer for 

you, in terms of when we might be able to have some sort of a policy implemented in this regard. 

Senator WYDEN. In the summer of 1998, the agency came to the 

Oregon Coast and committed to having a policy to reduce overages. 

You come here now, more than 2 years later, and you tell the Senate Committee that you’ve heard something about it. That’s what 

you just told us. 

26

How many more years is it going to take the agency to do what 

the agency pledged to do more than 2 years ago? 4 years? 6 years? 

Never? 

Ms. DARM. Well, I think everyone is committed to reducing bycatch and reducing overages. There are certainly many ways of getting at that. And it’s often the case that what seems like a good 

idea and something that you should pursue and go forward with, 

when you actually try to flesh it out and develop it more fully, 

doesn’t seem like it may be the best way to accomplish it or the 

highest priority, on further reflection after further developing the 

idea. 

Senator WYDEN. Congresswoman Hooley asks the very useful 

question whether you can use the numbers you now have to make 

some assumptions regarding overages. 

Do you need everything imaginable, everything in your dream 

budget to start an overage program? I think it’s a very good question. 

Ms. DARM. I’m sorry, numbers in terms of observers? 

Senator WYDEN. You have some data, apparently, that asserts 

that overages are going down. I can tell you that the people of Oregon constantly see pictures of bycatch and overages with vast 

amounts of fish being brought to shore and trashed, in a state 

where we now lead the country in hunger. 

So Congresswoman Hooley asks the question about whether it 

would be possible to use the existing data, which you seem to think 

is good enough to be able to tell us that overages are going down, 

to set in place a real overage reduction program. 

Ms. DARM. Mr. Senator, I’ve asked Mr. Robinson to join me at 

the table, because this may be getting into more—I’m not—I’m still 

not sure exactly that I—that I understand the question but—— Senator WYDEN. Ms. Darm, you have said overages are going 

down. 

Ms. DARM. Catch overall is going down. 

Senator WYDEN. So that is obviously based on some data. 

Why not, as Congresswoman Hooley has asked, use that data to 

set in place what the agency committed to do in 1998? Isn’t it possible to extrapolate from that data? 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ROBINSON, ASSISTANT REGIONAL 

ADMINISTRATOR, SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NORTHWEST 

REGION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,

ACCOMPANYING DONNA DARM 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator and Congresswoman, my name is Bill 

Robinson. I’m the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable 

Fisheries for the Northwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service. 

We have to be quite honest. Very little data on the quantity of 

fish that are discarded——

Senator WYDEN. Was Ms. Darm right when she said the overages 

are going down? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Ms. Darm was right in saying that the catches 

are going down. We won’t know whether the bycatch is going down 

or up, until we’re able to get an adequate level of observer coverage 

in the fishery to tell us. 

27

Right now, the fishery is being managed on some estimates of bycatch that come from some very old studies and some—from some 

data from some newer studies, an enhanced data collection program that was run in cooperation with the Oregon Trawl Commission. 

But to get to your question about policies, what’s happened is 

since 1998, through the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Magnuson Act 

Amendments, we have had seven species that have already been 

declared overfished, with a commitment for the Council to develop 

rebuilding plans for each of those species. 

The difficult part of the rebuilding plans—and what the Council 

and the agency have been wrestling with for the last 2 or 3 years— is how to implement those rebuilding plans, the types of regulations that will rebuild the stocks, yet minimize the impact on the 

fishing community. That, to be quite honest with you, has subsumed almost all of the resources of both the Pacific Fishing Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service here 

on the West Coast, developing those rebuilding plans and developing the management measures to implement those in such a way 

that they’ll both rebuild the stocks and allow the viability of the 

fishery to continue. 

Those management measures, many of them are designed to reduce bycatch and reduce overages. For example, the—we have—or 

the Council has recommended we implement differential trip limits, where fishermen using bycatch-friendly gear can hunt higher 

limits. Certainly, a full retention program of some sort, in terms of 

reducing wastage, would be something that would be beneficial to 

develop and have. But at this point, it wouldn’t provide either the 

money to fund research, because the limits are so low, and it 

wouldn’t provide data on overages. Because we wouldn’t have 

enough observer coverage in order to know that fishermen are truly 

keeping all of their bycatch or all of their overages. But principally—— Senator WYDEN. Can I ask you a question on this? 

In 1998, I was given a commitment by the agency to move forward with the program that allowed the sale of overages and the 

profits used to fund research. The Pacific Council approved a pilot 

project to get under way. NMFS still is not willing to go forward 

with the pilot project or anything else. 

Why not? 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator, the bottom line has been that we have 

essentially diverted our resources to work on overfished stocks and 

rebuilding plants and reducing capacity. The Council determined 

those two areas to be the highest priority, and that’s where all our 

resources have gone. 

Senator WYDEN. So we’ve just dropped the overages issue. When 

the agency makes a commitment to communities and decides to 

change its mind, that’s that? 

Mr. ROBINSON. In the Council, we have an above-the-line and 

below-the-line set of work priorities. Basically, in terms of what 

was above the line is what gets worked on are those issues of 

greatest impact and those required to comply with the statute. 

It doesn’t mean that the Council or the agency didn’t desire to 

work on other issues. But those issues fell below the line in the 

28

sense that there were not enough resources to do everything above 

the line and everything below the line as well. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, this is all very interesting. But, the fact 

is the agency committed, in 1998, to do something about this issue. 

The Council agreed on a pilot project, and I think that this is just 

foot dragging. 

You know, Ms. Darm, if you want to get back to me within 30 

days on a specific plan to do what the agency said they would do, 

we can discuss it. If not, I’m going to push to get some folks down 

at NMFS who are going to do it. I think when you make a commitment to people, it’s got to be adhered to; or I guess why would they 

trust their government? 

This is a serious problem. People see it constantly. It goes right 

to the heart of the credibility of government. You ask people to conserve, and yet they see these pictures of what amounts to just flagrant waste. Government comes to them and tells them that something is going to be done to change it, and nothing is done. 

So, I guess you’re saying that it’s Okay to do business this way. 

But, I will tell you that as a Member of the Committee with jurisdiction over your agency, I’m going to do everything I can to change 

business as usual at NMFS. It’s not acceptable to take 11 months, 

to get out money for a disaster. It’s not acceptable to tell us that 

you will try to do various things in the research area when your 

budget has been doubled, as we have noted here. And frankly, I 

can hardly make hide nor hair about what you all plan to do on 

the overages and bycatch issue, other than as little as possible, in 

spite of the fact that the agency made a commitment more than 2 

years ago. 

So, I have only one other area, and that’s this question of getting 

people out on the ground. What I’m told by fishing families in the 

coastal communities is that they have nobody to talk to with respect to feedback on a particular project; that they’re working on 

a sustainability project, and there is no one there to turn to. Is that 

right? Are they factually wrong about that? Are there people in 

these communities that they can work with? And, if so, name them, 

because I think that people here would be just delighted to know 

who they can work with. 

Ms. DARM. We have a groundfish staff in the Northwest Region 

that’s four people. Those people are located in Seattle. We do have 

staff at the Science Center who are located here, of course. But we 

do not have the staff who are located in the coastal communities. 

Senator WYDEN. Do you think that’s a good way of doing business? 

Ms. DARM. I’d love to have people out in the communities, but 

we don’t have the resources or the staff to do that. 

Senator WYDEN. Wouldn’t it make sense to have at least a part 

of their time devoted to being out in the communities? 

Ms. DARM. Oh, absolutely, yes. Yes, most definitely. 

Senator WYDEN. And maybe some of the people from Washington 

D.C. and some of the people from Seattle? Would you commit to 

doing that today? 

Ms. DARM. I’m looking at Bill, because these are people who report to him. And they work for him. And he is saying yes. 

Senator WYDEN. Yes to what? 

29

Ms. DARM. Yes, we’d agree to having people out here. 

Senator WYDEN. Once a year? Once every 6 months? I mean, this 

is a little bit like the old assessment from Adlai Stevenson when 

he didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. We’ve got to get some 

changes here. There’s a world of economic hurt out there in these 

communities. Congress doubled your budget, and what you’re telling us is, as I’ve outlined before, is not something that gives these 

families a lot to take home and say, ‘‘Our government is responding 

to our concerns.’’ Are they going to come once a month? Once a year? Once every 

6 months? What could you tell us, in terms of helping people on 

the ground? These are people who want to work with the agency. 

They want to get some feedback on what they’re doing and what’s 

working and what’s not. 

Mr. ROBINSON. Senator, we certainly would like to interact with 

members of the fishing community in those communities. Because 

we have a small staff and a large regulatory workload, it’s been difficult to do so. But I think we would like to do that and would respond affirmatively to requests to come to the fishing communities, 

perhaps once or twice a year, and make ourselves available to 

interact, and more often than that, as our regulatory duties would 

allow us to do. It’s something we have not done enough, and I 

think all of us realize that. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I don’t think one or two times a year is 

going to cut it. I mean, these are people who believe that their government ought to be out on the ground working with them and not 

in these regional and beltway offices. I had 13 town hall meetings 

over the last 2 weeks, because people think I ought to be on the 

ground. That’s what Congresswoman Hooley has been doing. 

I’m going to move on and ask some other questions. I am not 

going to just allow business as usual at this agency. This is not 

good enough. This is not good enough for all these families that are 

hurting this way. You don’t reflect the kind of urgency and responsiveness and commitment that these families deserve and have a 

right to expect. So we’ll move on. But suffice it to say, we’re going 

to have extensive followup on these matters. 

Mr. Coenen, some questions for you, the first being the question 

of individual fishing quotas. As you know, we’ll be dealing with the 

Magnuson Stevens Act in the Committee, and I know you all at the 

state are taking a look at that. 

What would be your position on that? 

Mr. COENEN. Yes, Senator Wyden. I think there’s probably unanimity at the Council level—and having been on the Council when 

I was with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife—that individual transferrable quotas or individual fishing quotas—and 

there’s been a moratorium since 1996, although it’s just expired—

are potentially a very useful and needed tool in the overall toolkit 

the Council has available to it to work with. 

Individual fishing quotas are not well understood by the public. 

And there is limited U.S. experience. I think there are four programs, sablefish and halibut in the North Council, and I believe a 

couple on the East Coast involving clams and wreckfish. They’re 

much more—they have been much more used internationally in 

New Zealand, Australia, etc. They have advantages, because they 

30

have a certain market-based aspect. They will resolve race-for-fish 

problems, safety problems, capacity problems, etc. 

But I think it’s fair to say as well there are a lot of legitimate 

concerns about how they are shaped. You have to consider the definition of the privilege that goes with the quota. There is the qualification criteria upon initial issuance. Transferrability and accumulation of shares become issues because of the equity concerns, the 

distribution of these rights, and even the available fish for landing 

and supporting the on-shore infrastructure. 

The Council is not unfamiliar with the pros and cons, having developed an IQ for sablefish, at one point, that became so cumbersome and conflicted, in terms of support, that it essentially died 

of its own weight. And part of that is the responsibility of an industry and management that could not come to a consensus on its 

shape. 

Nonetheless, I think the Council is looking, at this point—and I 

think the State of Oregon would support the Council—that it is a 

needed tool. The Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences 

to review IQs, and a report has come forth, I think, back to the 

Congress, which will be useful in reauthorization discussion. It 

makes a series of, I think, very substantive and practical recommendations for sideboards. The group that conducted the report 

held hearings around the country. They heard a lot of the pros and 

the cons. And one thing they did hear clearly from industry, managers, environmental groups is that a cookie-cutter approach, a 

one-style-fits-all would not work. There are eight councils and a 

multitude of different fisheries. The Council needs the tool and 

needs to adapt it to specific situations where it’s appropriate. 

Senator WYDEN. The other one, Mr. Coenen, that we wanted to 

explore was the question of surveys of groundfishing state-wise. As 

you know, the fish, of course, don’t respect the boundary between 

state and federal waters. And, I was interested in any ideas you 

might have in which you could work cooperatively with NMFS and 

others to expedite getting quality research on states-wise. 

Mr. COENEN. Thank you, Senator. And that’s a very good question. 

At a general level, I think this issue of fisheries work in either 

the territorial seat, the state jurisdiction, or just near shore—however that might be defined—is one that will come up over and over 

again, simply because the groundfish management job covering 

both state and federal waters is simply too large, and there will 

never be sufficient budget, I think, as a practical matter, to do the 

whole thing to the last degree. And so partly, the Council itself in 

its Strategic Plan has anticipated that an evolving relationship, a 

closer-working, cooperative relationship, between industry both recreational and commercial, the states and the Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service needs to evolve with a particular 

focus on essentially beginning to delegate more research and management activity, not necessarily a delegation of authority, but 

with funding assistance to the states. 

Now with specific regard to survey work, the NMFS triennial 

trawl survey and the periodic shelf surveys have had problems, because they have not come into some of the shallower waters. The 

wide variety of west coast rockfish species, in particular, are disVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
31

tributed both north to south, and from near shore shallow areas to 

very deep areas on the continental slope. In Oregon the perhaps 

ten or twelve rockfish species that you might characterize as being 

predominantly inside forty fathoms (near shore and state jurisdiction), the areas typically not federally surveyed are ones that recreational and some commercial fisheries in particular rely on. And 

in Oregon, at least, we have only one fish of ten or twelve near 

shore that have ever had a quantified assessment. So the work is 

clearly needed. 

The State of Oregon, Representative Thompson, last session was 

critical in getting the $528,000 in general funds—this is not license 

fee revenues—added to the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 

budget. These funds support research projects that are being targeted on some of these species, as well as some shelf species. And—

and my reference in testimony to the Governor maintaining that 

priority essentially is the State of Oregon’s contribution to jumpstarting particularly, some of this needed near shore work. 

Also in testimony I suggested an additional million dollars appropriated directly to each of the three states would allow them not 

only to participate in the observer program, but to ramp up in particular near shore research activity. This near shore research, is 

not a task I think that large federal vessels are going to come inside to shallow waters and do. You need smaller research vessels, 

the vessels the fishing families of Oregon own and operate. 

So that’s just an approximate outline of what the State of Oregon 

is doing. It is a priority. We believe it will get increased attention 

and will be built on relationships of coordinated research. 

Senator WYDEN. I think those are constructive suggestions. 

Mr. Lone, you all at the Council, at least your Strategic Plan this 

summer, is calling for an elimination of fifty percent of the vessels 

currently in the fishery. In the fall, the Council approved the Plan 

for groundfish and certainly some changes in that. 

Were the fishing communities notified and allowed to participate 

in the formulation of the Plan? 

Mr. LONE. Well, Senator——

Senator WYDEN. Pull that microphone toward you. 

Mr. LONE. As I mentioned earlier, we began the process about 

September 1999 with a Council meeting in Sacramento. At that 

time, the facilitator that we hired, the firm we hired to assist us, 

met with all the—our various panels and management teams and 

Council members and entire Council family, including the general 

public. And then each time throughout the year that we had a 

Council meeting where the Plan was on the Council’s agenda for 

either action or update, there was public testimony allowed. 

In addition to that, we used our newsletter, the Web site, interviews with some local newspapers here in Oregon to try to get that 

word out; and recognizing that we can never get the word out to 

everybody, but I think we did a decent job; sort of culminating, 

then, at the time the Plan was adopted by the Council, where we 

went down prior to that, the month prior to that, to all three states 

and had public meetings; and then finally, when the Plan was 

adopted, the public evening session that week and then some more 

public comment during the day so—of the adoption. 

32

So my sense was that we certainly tried to get the word out to 

have the public participate in that process. And during the Strategic Plan implementation committee meetings that were held in 

Gladstone, there were members of the public that attended those, 

too. 

Senator WYDEN. We’ll put you in contact with some folks from 

Coos Bay who were not all too pleased with the process. 

Mr. LONE. And we have one of the representatives from Coos Bay 

here in the audience who has been a participant all the way 

through. So I would be interested to hear about the others that 

weren’t. 

Senator WYDEN. Now, the Plan calls for buyout of 50 percent of 

the participants in the groundfish. Needless to say, I think all parties would say this would take a significant amount of funds from 

the federal government. As I think you know, the General Accounting Office put out a report this summer stipulating their view that 

federal buyout programs are ineffective, especially in what they describe as industries with latent capacity, which are essentially individuals that own permits but aren’t actively fishing. Now, my understanding is that at present there are a fair number of people on 

the West Coast who have groundfish permits but aren’t using 

them, because they think the harvest levels are too low to bother. 

What is your sense of how you would deal with this so-called latent capacity issue, while trying to keep the price tag affordable? 

The reason I ask is that the Congress is going to insist on having 

this kind of information. Certainly, there aren’t as many of us from 

the coastal states as we would like. And buyback proposals, by anybody’s calculations, are pretty contentious, and people are going to 

look at the price tags. 

So if you would, please—you may want to get back to me for the 

record on this, as well. This is an important issue. Because for Congress to vote the funds on the buyback question, there’s going to 

have to be a thoughtful response to what the General Accounting 

Office found. 

So if you would, take a crack at it here and feel free to amplify 

for the record on it. Because this is an important issue for the Congress. 

Mr. LONE. Okay. Well, my crack at it, Senator, would be that we 

did meet last week for the first time on our Strategic Plan Implementation Oversight Committee. You may be aware that what that 

process envisions is that members of the general public then will 

be involved in that process in implementation committees that deal 

with certain priorities. 

Part of the meeting last week was devoted to identifying the 

need for a package to go back to Congress that would spell out the 

kind of details that you’ve asked. So we are going to be quick putting that together in written form with adequate detail to provide 

that kind of information. 

Certainly, as the Council has deliberated this over the last year 

or so, we understand that the latent capacity and its impact on 

buyback and all that kind of stuff is real critical to having a 

buyback program be successful. So we will get that to you. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, it’s critical—apart from the issues you 

mentioned, it’s critical right at the outset for us to generate the biVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
33

partisan support that we need in the Congress. Senator Smith and 

I will certainly be working on it on a bipartisan basis as part of 

our working agenda. And Congresswoman Hooley has consistently 

advocated for these fishing families. But, colleagues who don’t represent coastal areas are going to be asking to see annual reports. 

We need you to get out—my mom always calls it the sharp pencil. 

You need to get out the sharp pencil and get us those numbers as 

soon as you can. 

Mr. LONE. We’ll do that. 

Senator WYDEN. I know Congresswoman Hooley has to go to 

other meetings in her district. I want her to know how much I appreciate her coming and feel badly about the constraints of the 

Senate rules in terms of questions. But we appreciate your leadership, and we’ll be calling on it often. 

We’ll—unless any of you would like to add anything further—do 

any of the panel members have anything further? We’ll excuse you, 

at this time, and we’ll bring forward Bob Eaton, Rod Fujita, and 

Ginny Goblirsch. 

[Whereupon, there was a break in the proceedings.] 

Senator WYDEN. The Committee will come to order. 

We have a lengthy agenda to continue with. We welcome Bob 

Eaton, Pacific Marine Conservation Council, Rod Fujita, from Environmental Defense, and Ginny Goblirsch, Coordinator of the 

Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program. 

We thank all of you for your patience. Obviously, there are a lot 

of questions to ask the panel and try to move things along. 

Mr. Eaton, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF BOB EATON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

PACIFIC MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

Mr. EATON. Thank you, Senator. I’m very thankful for your initiative in getting this hearing going here today. Thank you very 

much. And we appreciate Congresswoman Hooley’s participation 

today and her commitment to these issues. 

At the risk of the precedent that was just set at going first and 

the grilling that the first person may take, I’m going to give this 

a shot anyway. My name is Bob Eaton. I’m the Executive Director 

of the Pacific Marine Conservation Council. We’re located in 

Astoria, Oregon. We work in Oregon, Washington, and California 

on an agenda of sustainable groundfish fisheries. And we work 

with a growing group of commercial and recreational fishing men 

and women, marine scientists, and environmentalists in this agenda that is supportive of sustainable fishing and coastal economies. 

As you know, we don’t have any throw-away industries, on the 

Coast and very little opportunity to backfill economically, if we do 

lose one. So the fishing industry is important to many and all of 

us. 

Yes, there is a crisis. And I don’t want to mention crisis again 

just to continue the drama, but to sort of supplement the theme 

that you’ve created here, Senator, about the urgency of action in all 

of this. We are in a crisis, and we do need to have action that is 

dependable and timely. 

But let me frame this just a bit by saying there are different 

ways of looking at this crisis. Economically, we’ve got a situation 

34

where the dollars earned by fishermen over the last 10 years have 

reduced—the last 5 years have reduced by almost 50 percent. 

That’s a pretty dramatic change. 

We also have some biological and management crises, as well. 

For instance, of the 83 species of federally managed groundfish 

caught off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California, about 

68 of those are listed as status unknown, which means that about 

75 percent of the species managed we don’t know much about. Of 

the 71 identified species of rockfish on the West Coast, the Council 

manages 55 of those. And of those, 47 are listed as status unknown 

or almost 85 percent. So there’s a long way we have to go regarding 

the knowledge about these fish that we are ‘‘managing.’’ When it comes to the management side of this thing, our current 

scheme is to ratchet down trip limits. And that probably exacerbates the problem you brought to our attention today, and that is 

with discards and overages. Because the fishing gears have not 

changed dramatically, there continues to be large catches. Fishermen are doing a great job of attempting to change their fishing behavior and where they fish and how they fish, but there is much 

more yet that needs to be done. 

So there are some bright spots, as mentioned. Going to annual surveys is a definite bright spot. The $2.3 million in the budget for 

fiscal year 2001 for an observer program is a bright spot. The 

Council’s Strategic Plan, ‘‘Transition to Sustainability,’’ is a bright 

spot. We just need to have some momentum going now to get there. 

And ultimately, what this all boils down to is dollars. The fishing 

industry, whether it’s commercial or recreational, is a public/private partnership. And quite honestly, from my perspective, the 

public and private investment in these fisheries over the years has 

been insufficient. And it’s a pay-me-now-or-pay-me-later situation. 

The fact that we now have a minimum of seven fish on rebuilding 

plans, another three or four are potentials, says to me that the bill 

is coming due here. And if we don’t pay that, there’s no way we 

can get to the sustainability that the Council’s plan envisions. 

You’ve asked today what Congress could do to help, and I want 

to cut right to that, if I may, and say that first of all our organization, Pacific Marine Conservation Council fully supports any and 

all efforts to assist with coastal communities. And we encourage 

Congress to work with the states in developing a plan that begins 

to meet those needs. 

We also will support a buyback that removes the vessels, and removes the permits. We think that is a plus and is very important. 

And I know that the industry is working on a plan there. I don’t 

know all the details. But I would encourage Congress to work with 

them on that. 

We feel that the observer program is only half funded, at this 

point, even though Congress has provided some funding. We would 

recommend another two-and-a-half-million dollars be included in 

supplemental appropriations to provide an observer program that 

will actually give us the coverage that’s necessary on the West 

Coast. 

We also want to support the idea that Neal Coenen brought forward; and that is that an additional million dollars for each of the 

three states be added, so they can begin to do the work on near 

35

shore fisheries. The Council’s Plan envisions that the states will 

take over the management on their shore. But they can’t do that 

without some resources. 

An observer program is an integral part of all of this. And if I 

may, Senator, I want to read from a statement that was made by 

the Pacific Council’s Groundfish Management Team at its meeting 

in November. It says, ‘‘The Groundfish Management Team continues to remind the Council that lacking a comprehensive observer 

program or a verified full retention program, our estimates of total 

fishing mortality remain highly uncertain. Absent a tool to measure changes in fish mortality that result from management 

changes, the GMT has no resource, other than to review trawl log 

books, which contain no discard information, and then make guesstimates as to what extent measures, such as gear modification or 

changes in fishing behavior, have altered observed bycatch logbook 

rates. Moreover, for the non-trawl sector, the GMT has no logbook 

program or other information to gauge the bycatch consequences of 

the Council’s management measures. The GMT strongly supports 

the rapid development of an observer program that will provide information on total mortality in the groundfish fisheries.’’ Critical 

issue, very high on our agenda, and I hope it can be on yours as 

well. 

The last thing I want to say is that there is no way that the Pacific Council is in a position right now to implement its Strategic 

Plan, as good as it is, as visionary as it is and as far as it moves 

beyond the comfort level of a lot of people. We fully support an additional $500,000 per year for 3 years for the Council, so it can hire 

the additional staff necessary to begin implementing this plan; otherwise, it’s going to go on the shelf. It’s going to be a nice piece of 

work, and we’re all going to be sitting here in 3 years having the 

same discussion all over again. 

So Senator, thank you very much for being here and for allowing 

us to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eaton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB EATON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC MARINE

CONSERVATION COUNCIL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

testify on West Coast groundfish issues. My name is Bob Eaton. I am the Executive 

Director of Pacific Marine Conservation Council, or PMCC. PMCC is a nonprofit, 

public benefit organization working with commercial and recreational fishermen, 

scientists and conservationists to conserve and sustain West Coast groundfish and 

the coastal communities that depend upon them. PMCC’s mission is dual and focuses on maintaining the health of the resource as well as the economies of coastal 

communities. It is this mission, combined with concerns for the state of the groundfish resource, the maintenance of fleet diversity, and the sustainability of the 

groundfish fishery, that is the catalyst for this testimony. 

Background 

The West Coast groundfish fishery is in a crisis. One year ago, the Secretary of 

Commerce issued a disaster declaration for this fishery. The current situation is incrementally worse. At least five species of groundfish have declined to levels where 

rebuilding plans are required; this month, two more species, dark-blotched and 

widow rockfish, are expected to be designated as over-fished. 

Exacerbating the process of rebuilding these weak stocks is the fact that they are 

often found where harvest of healthy stocks occurs, and the over-fished species are 

caught as bycatch. However, we lack reliable data regarding total mortality of these 

fish, because we currently have no mechanism to measure it. Fishery managers are 

36

compelled to impose trip limits and other restrictions on groundfish landings, lacking the necessary total mortality information. 

Coastal communities are reeling under the economic hardship resultant from 

groundfish stock declines and management responses. The disaster declaration is, 

unfortunately, deserved. Fisherman, fishing families and local businesses are all 

suffering. Some areas have already lost all or part of the infrastructure that supports the fishing industry. PMCC joins these communities in aspiring to the vision 

of sustainable fisheries. 

The Pacific Fishery Management Council is moving to implement their precedent 

setting five-year strategic plan for groundfish, titled ‘‘Transition to Sustainability.’’ This thoughtfully-prepared transition envisions substantial capacity reduction, use 

of marine reserves as a management tool, exploring incentives to encourage less destructive and more selective gear types, and immediately implementing an observer 

program. 

The Observer Program 

The cornerstone of possible recovery for the groundfish fishery is a mandatory atsea observer program. Fishermen and scientists often disagree over the health of a 

particular species, but neither has the complete data to substantiate their case. 

Without an observer program, managers must continue to use approximations 

which, if overly conservative, result in unnecessary limitations on fishing efforts. 

Conversely, if fish populations are over-estimated, this inadequate data could result 

in allowing overexploitation—to the long-term detriment of the resource and our 

fishing communities. 

Current estimates of bycatch rates in West Coast groundfish fisheries are largely 

based on a study done in the mid-1980s. Making critical decisions based on outdated 

information is a disservice to the resource and the fishermen. From 1995–1998 a 

very limited observer program operated with voluntary cooperation from relatively 

few trawl vessel operators. However, the Enhanced Data Collection Project did not 

provide for random placement of observers. This fact and the voluntary nature of 

the program essentially rendered the results to be less statistically robust and applicable than a mandatory program would be. 

We’ve learned from extensive data collecting efforts in other fishery-dependent regions that an effective observer program must include these basic elements:

• The observer program and placement of observers must be mandatory.

• Coverage must be coast-wide.

• Observation of all gear types must be included, although coverage need not be 

100 percent in order to be statistically valid.

• Observers must be well-trained technicians with no conflict-of-interest.

• Data must be consistently collected over a period of years and used in a timely 

manner.

Congress deserves congratulations for taking the affirmative step last month of 

appropriating $2.275 million to begin a West Coast observer program. These funds 

will help develop the structure and finance a rudimentary first year program. 

PMCC asks that another $2.5 million be provided to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) through 2001 Supplemental Appropriations—earmarked for the 

West Coast observer program. This is the requisite beginning to getting the data 

needed for sound management. In addition we ask that $1 million each be provided 

to the states of Oregon, Washington and California to allow for observers and data 

gathering in near-shore and state-managed fisheries, recognizing that fish don’t distinguish between state and federal waters. 

For fiscal year 2002, we ask that Congress appropriate $5 million for continuing 

the federally managed observer program. This is the right step to take to help move 

towards sustainable fisheries. 

The need to secure and protect adequate funding for West Coast observers is so 

vital to the effort to achieve sustainable fisheries that the $2.5 million 2001 Supplemental (plus $3 million for the states) and the $5 million for fiscal year 2002 should 

be stand-alone lines in the funding requests. 

The observer program is a high priority for the Pacific Council. At the November, 

2000, Council meeting a PFMC Groundfish Management Team Report began: ‘‘The 

GMT continues to remind the Council that lacking a comprehensive observer program, or a verified full retention program, our estimates of total fishing mortality 

remain highly uncertain. Absent a tool to measure changes in fish mortality that 

result from management changes, the GMT has no recourse other than to review 

trawl logbooks (which contain no discard information) and then make ‘‘guessVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
37

timates’’ as to what extent measures such as gear modification or changes in fishing 

behavior have altered observed logbook bycatch rates. Moreover, for the nontrawl 

sector, the GMT has no logbook program or other information to gauge the bycatch 

consequences of the Council’s management measures. The GMT strongly supports 

the rapid development of an observer program that will provide information on total 

mortality in the groundfish fisheries.’’

Other Important Issues 

While the number one priority that I emphasize in this testimony is the need to 

adequately fund an observer program, I want to be clear that Pacific Marine Conservation Council fully supports funding for community relief. Many individuals 

within the fishing communities urgently need support and retraining as soon as possible. PMCC urges Congress to work with the states to provide adequate funds. 

Other research activities beyond observer data collection are needed to move this 

fishery to recovery. Basic information is not yet available for most of the 83 federally managed groundfish species on the West Coast. We urge Congress to appropriate funds for NMFS to use to fund groundfish research through both the Southwest and Northwest Fisheries Science Centers, to conduct additional at-sea surveys 

and expand cooperative research efforts with the fishing industry. In fact, these cooperative projects are an excellent way to involve fishermen in data gathering while 

simultaneously providing some economic relief. 

PMCC realizes the urgent need to support the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and encourages Congress to supplement the Council’s budget with $500,000 for 

staff and resources to help implement their strategic plan. 

Finally, in the coming session, the Commerce Committee may have the opportunity to consider reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act. PMCC encourages the Committee to include language authorizing the Pacific Fishery Management Council to institute fee systems, should they 

choose, to enable industry participation for support of observer programs. 

I look forward to assisting you and your staff as changes are made to sustain our 

fisheries. I am prepared to offer any information you may need and I welcome your 

questions. Thank you once again for this opportunity to share my thoughts and the 

views of my organization. 

Respectfully submitted,

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, very helpful. 

Let us move now to Dr. Fujita. 

Dr. FUJITA. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator WYDEN. Nice to see you again. 

STATEMENT OF RODNEY M. FUJITA, PH.D.,

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE 

Dr. FUJITA. Nice to be here. Thanks for this opportunity to testify. 

I’m Rod Fujita, for the record, with Environmental Defense. I did 

my post-doctoral training here at the Hatfield Marine Science Center. I have been working on improving groundfish management for 

about 9 years now. 

In your letter, Senator, you asked us to respond to your question 

of what caused this fishery disaster. And from my perspective, it 

was inadequate science, risk-prone management, and poor ocean 

productivity acting together. There’s not enough money to survey 

fish populations thoroughly enough. As a result, stock assessment 

scientists had to rely heavily on less reliable data, such as catch 

statistics and logbook records, just as Bob said. The most basic 

fishing statistic of all, total fishing mortality, remains unknown to 

this day, because no observers have been on the boats. All this 

added up to uncertainty about how many fish were actually out 

there in the ocean. 

The right way to deal with uncertainty is to be cautious with the 

resource. In 1990, the Council adopted a harvest policy that was 

38

thought to be conservative at time, but really it wasn’t. This policy 

called for fishing at a constant rate that would eventually reduce 

the spawner-to-recruit ratio to about 35 percent of original levels. 

Morever, the Council did not adequately acknowledge concerns that 

reducing the absolute numbers of fish might lead to a decrease in 

young fish and a further decline in spawning, rather than leading 

to maximum sustainable yield, as predicted by theory. 

The Council didn’t modify this harvest policy even when new 

studies published in 1993 indicated that it was too aggressive. The 

fishing industry, with few exceptions, emphasized how uncertain 

the stock levels were and argued that precautionary cuts in allowable catch would result in unjustifiable, short-term economic impacts. Environmentalists, along with some scientists and fisherman, took a longer view, urging the Council to establish marine reserves to buffer against uncertainty, to adopt a more conservative 

harvest policy, and to make the precautionary cuts. The industry’s 

arguments proved more persuasive, in most cases. 

In 1997, the Council finally adopted a more conservative harvest 

policy, at least for rockfish. But by then, at least five major stocks 

had fallen to less than twenty percent of their estimated unfished 

levels and were already exhibiting poor reproduction. Low ocean 

productivity probably exacerbated these declines. However, the fact 

that large populations of rockfish and other groundfish persisted 

throughout this period in de facto and regulatory marine reserves, 

where no fishing was allowed, indicates to me that fishing was 

probably the major cause of these declines. 

To put the groundfish fishery on a sustainable path, several 

steps ought to be taken, in my view. First, the federal government 

should provide more financial assistance to the communities and 

fishermen displaced by the failed policies of the past. Although 

many fishing industry representatives argued against the more 

conservative policies that would have averted this fishery disaster, 

it’s the government’s responsibility to protect the public trust. 

Thus, the government should be held accountable for this management failure. I also support Neal Coenen’s request for funding, including more money to support the Council’s Strategic Plan process 

for disaster relief and for enhanced research. 

The second priority, I think, should be to reduce fishing capacity 

as soon as possible, ideally by implementing a transferrable individual fishing quota program that comparts with national standards for equity, conservation, and social impact. As was mentioned 

before, the National Research Council recently issued a report requested by Congress on IFQs. This report recommends that Congress lift the moratorium on IFQ programs. Alternatively, Congress 

should authorize sufficient funds to buy a specific number of the 

existing groundfish vessels, not just the permits, to take care of the 

latent fishing capacity problem. 

Third, implement marine reserves in which all fishing is banned 

as soon as possible. Fish abundance and size are much higher in 

nearly all of the dozens of reserves that have been studied, including those that have been established on the West Coast, compared 

to fishing grounds. Reproductive capacity of rockfish and ling cod, 

many of which have been classified as overfished in recent years, 

has been documented to be twenty to fifty times higher in no-take 

39

marine reserves than in fished areas. This is probably because fish 

in the reserves can grow older, larger, and more productive than 

fish outside the reserves. 

Fourth, improve the scientific basis of fisheries management. 

Stock assessment scientists do the best they can, with very limited 

and often misleading data. Increased peer review will not solve the 

root problem. It’s helpful, but it will not solve the root problem. We 

really need to increase the amount of data collected independently 

of the fishery. Surveys using underwater cameras and videos— some of those studies have been done out of this marine research 

station—may prove to be the most cost-effective way to obtain this 

sort of fishery-independent data. 

Finally, I think we need to reform the management system. Reforming the management system may be the most difficult reform 

of all, but it is perhaps the most important. Some Council members 

and NMFS officials took courageous stands in favor of precautionary management. But it seems unreasonable to expect people who represent the fishing industry to consistently support longterm sustainability and ecosystem protection in the face of pressure 

from constituents to avoid short-term economic impacts, which are 

very real and which often accompany these policies. More scientists, conservationists, and consumer advocates should sit on the 

Council. NMFS should more rigorously implement the precautionary approach and provide objective, apolitical oversight over 

the Council’s recommendations. 

Thank you very much for considering my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fujita follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RODNEY M. FUJITA, PH.D., ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am a marine ecologist and senior scientist with Environmental Defense. Environmental Defense is a national non-governmental organization with over 300,000 members. We use science, law, and economics to craft durable and sensible solutions to environmental problems. I have 

been working to improve the management of west coast groundfisheries for about 

9 years. In addition to my research and writing on the subject, I have served on 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Advisory Panel, Habitat 

Steering Committee, Alternative Groundfish Management Committee, and Marine 

Reserve Committee. 

Summary 

My view is that inadequate science and risk-prone management caused the west 

coast groundfish disaster. Stock assessment scientists could not produce reliable 

stock assessments because inadequate funding resulted in patchy sampling of fish 

biomass. As a result, scientists had to rely heavily on fishery-dependent data such 

as catch statistics, which are known to be misleading. In addition, the most basic 

fishery statistic of all, total fishing mortality, remains unknown to this day due to 

the lack of an observer program and reliable logbook records. Scientists advising the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) failed to make the large amount of uncertainty associated with 

stock assessments and the theory of Maximum Sustainable Yield clear to managers, 

choosing instead to offer multiple alternative models. 

While some Council members called for precautionary management, too often the 

Council, as a whole, simply chose the models which supported status-quo catch levels, or, when cuts were called for, chose intermediate reductions in allowable catch. 

They sought to minimize short-term economic losses more often than they chose to 

err on the side of conservation. This tendency was reinforced by a management system that was captured, by and large, by the fishing industry. The fishing industry, 

with a few exceptions, emphasized the uncertainty inherent in stock assessments 

and opposed precautionary cuts in allowable catch, arguing that such cuts would result in unjustifiable short-term economic impacts. Environmentalists, along with 

40

some scientists and fishermen, took a longer view, warning that the PFMC’s harvest 

policy was too aggressive given the uncertainty surrounding stock assessments. 

They urged the PFMC to establish marine reserves to buffer against uncertainty, 

adopt a more conservative harvest policy, and to make precautionary cuts when it 

became clear that many groundfish species were not as productive as once thought. 

However, these recommendations were generally ignored until recently. 

The solution is to reduce fishing capacity (ideally with an Individual Fishing 

Quota program), establish marine reserves where no fishing would be allowed, provide financial assistance to fishermen displaced by management policies, improve 

the scientific basis for management, and reform the management structure and 

process. 

Diagnosis of a Fishery Disaster 

The west coast is the world center for rockfish diversity and was home to very 

large populations of many kinds of groundfish. They were mostly left alone prior to 

the 1960’s, but fishermen started to catch more of them as the salmon fisheries declined. In the 1970’s, groundfish landings began to exceed salmon landings. The 

groundfish fishery became very large and valuable. 

However, this fishery was based on fishing down large populations. Fishery scientists assumed that groundfish reproduction would increase as these populations 

were thinned out, reducing competition between fish for mates, food, habitat, and 

other ecological essentials. So they recommended that managers allow fishermen to 

harvest them at a constant rate, regardless of how abundant the populations were. 

The PFMC’s scientists recommended a fixed harvest rate that would reduce the 

reproductive output of groundfish stocks to about 35% of their original levels, with 

the expectation that this would eventually result in maximum sustainable yield 

from thinned out populations. No minimum biomass threshold was recommended. 

Managers readily adopted this recommendation, despite great uncertainty about 

stock abundance and productivity. This uncertainty resulted mainly from the lack 

of systematic and reliable methods for estimating or predicting either of the two 

main quantities needed to set an allowable catch limit: the number or biomass of 

fish, and the actual number or weight of fish killed by fishing. Fish biomass was 

and is difficult to estimate because under-funded research efforts resulted in patchy 

and infrequent sampling. Furthermore, sampling gear may miss a lot of fish that 

live in rocky habitats, because it tends to snag in such habitats. Total fishing mortality, the most basic of all fishery statistics, remains unknown due to the lack of 

an observer program and reliable logbook records. Fishing mortality is hard to predict or control because it often depends on weather and markets. These uncertainties were compounded by natural variability in ocean productivity. 

Many environmentalists and scientists called for more conservative harvest rates. 

In fact, William Clark, the scientist who originally recommended the 35% level in 

a 1991 paper, later amended his recommendation to a more conservative 40% in a 

1993 paper. However, the PFMC adopted the 35% policy in 1990 and reaffirmed this 

choice for most groundfish in 1997, four years after Clark published his amended 

analysis. To the PFMC’s credit, they did adopt a more conservative harvest rate for 

rockfish in 1997, based on the emerging consensus that these fishes were particularly vulnerable to fishing due to their long lives and sporadic reproduction. But by 

then, several stocks had declined to very low levels, precipitating drastic cuts in allowable catch. 

There are indications in PFMC’s publications that the Council was aware of the 

dangers of adopting the 35% policy. The main danger was that fishing at that rate 

could reduce average spawner biomass to unsustainably low levels, because fishing 

down the stock could result in reduced recruitment, which in turn could lead to less 

spawners—a vicious cycle of depletion. Environmentalists and some scientists certainly made their concerns clear. However, arguments for more precautionary management were often answered by arguments from the fishing industry that management was already too precautionary and that further cuts in allowable harvest 

would harm fishermen. The industry’s arguments proved more persuasive. 

Unfortunately, it turned out that those calling for more precautionary management were right. The large populations of groundfish that existed prior to the fishery were probably necessary to sustain these species in a highly variable ocean environment. So, fishing them down to a fraction of their original levels was not a good 

idea. Furthermore, most of the reproductive capacity of these populations was probably concentrated in the older fish, which in many cases are not much larger than 

fish with much lower reproductive capacity. The fishery could not discriminate between these two size classes, by and large, so the most reproductively valuable elements of the groundfish populations were depleted. This probably reduced recruitment in turn, leading to a downward spiral exacerbated by generally poor ocean proVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
41

ductivity off the west coast since about 1977, and further exacerbated by El Nino 

events that appeared to get longer and more intense in the 1980’s and 1990’s. This poor science and incautious management occurred against a backdrop of a 

heavily overcapitalized groundfish fleet. The fleet became overcapitalized partly in 

response to government subsidies, but also in response to the management regime 

itself. The abundant groundfish stocks attracted fishermen while the salmon fishery 

was collapsing. Open access to the groundfishery encouraged investment in more 

and bigger vessels. The implementation of allowable catch limits resulted in shorter 

seasons, creating an incentive to invest in still larger and more efficient vessels and 

gear. In such a fishery, there is little incentive to leave fish in the water for conservation purposes, since those fish will be caught by the next fishermen who comes 

along. The incentive is to engage in a ‘‘fish arms race’’ to win the competition for 

fish. As groundfish populations declined, the fishing industry could or would not adjust quickly enough. It has been estimated that the fleet had the capacity to harvest 

several times the allowable catch by the late 1990’s. Thus, fishermen were right in 

arguing that cuts in allowable catches would hurt economically. Payments on vessels and gear purchased while fishing was good had to be made whether the fish 

were abundant or rare. 

Some environmentalists, scientists, and fishermen advocated the use of transferable Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) for harvest privileges to turn these incentives 

around. By dividing the allowable catch into transferable percentage shares, IFQ 

programs convert fishermen from resource users into investors in a healthy fish population, since their share values increase as the resource prospers. IFQs are especially effective at ending destructive and wasteful races for fish, and at bringing investment into alignment with allowable catch levels. IFQs also allow the industry 

a way to more quickly adjust to changes in fish abundance by buying and selling 

shares. 

The tragedy of the west coast groundfishery disaster is that it could have been 

avoided. The PFMC could have adopted a conservative harvest policy based on the 

precautionary approach, but it often chose to acquiesce to industry demands for less 

conservative policy choices. It could have instituted weak stock management for the 

multispecies groundfish fishery, shutting the fishery down when allowable catch 

limits for the least productive stock was reached. However, this was deemed too 

costly. It could have established marine reserves, where no fishing is allowed, to 

protect fish populations from uncertain stock assessments and management errors, 

but it did not. 

Solutions 

• First, the federal government should provide financial assistance to fishermen 

displaced by the failed policies of the past and by policies intended to help rebuild the fishery, such as reduced catch quotas and marine reserves.

Although many fishing industry representatives argued against the more conservative policies that would have averted the disaster, it is the government’s responsibility to protect the public’s larger interests. Thus, the government should be held 

accountable for this management failure.

• Fishing capacity should be reduced immediately, ideally by implementing an 

IFQ program.

The National Research Council recently issued a report requested by Congress on 

IFQs. This report recommends that Congress lift the moratorium on IFQ programs. 

The PFMC has already put considerable resources into developing an IFQ program 

for fixed gear sablefish. If an IFQ program is not adopted, the federal government 

should authorize sufficient funds to buy a significant number of the existing groundfish vessels, not just their fishing permits. Excessive fishing capacity not only reduces profits, it also creates a strong incentive to argue for less conservative policies.

• Marine reserves in which all fishing is banned should be implemented as soon 

as possible.

Marine reserves demonstrably allow depleted fish species to recover more rapidly 

than in fished areas. A recent scholarly survey of 89 scientific papers on marine reserves revealed that 90% of the reserves studied had more fish biomass compared 

with fished areas. Fish biomass within reserves was on average three times higher. 

Fish were also significantly larger in 83% of the reserves than in fished areas. These 

larger fish tend to have much more reproductive capacity than younger, smaller fish 

characteristic of fished areas. For example, one female Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes 

alutus) that is about 9 inches long generates 10,000 eggs, while one that is twice 

as long generates 300,000 eggs (30 times more). Therefore, one would expect that 

42

a fish protected within a marine reserve would yield much greater reproductive 

‘‘bang for the buck’’ than a fish protected with fishery management (e.g., lower catch 

rates).

• Improve the scientific basis of fisheries management

The PFMC’s response to uncertain stock assessments was to add another level of 

review to scrutinize the stock assessments. This did not address the root problem, 

however. Stock assessment scientists do the best they can with very limited and 

often misleading data. The interpretation of such limited data is often brilliant, but 

the fact remains that the data are limited in both quantity and quality. 

The way to reduce uncertainty in stock assessments is to increase the amount of 

fishery-independent data. The new observer program will help, but the observers 

can only count fish that are hauled to the surface during a fishing trip. Surveys of 

fish abundance that do not depend on the fishery at all are needed, because catch 

rates can remain high even as fish populations decline, due to the skill of fishermen 

at finding remaining fish aggregations. Existing fish surveys by NMFS need improvement, because they may miss a lot of rockfish species living in high relief rocky 

habitats that are relatively inaccessible to the sampling gear. They should also be 

done more frequently and over wider areas. Surveys using underwater cameras and 

video may be the most cost-effective way to obtain fishery-independent data. 

Equally important, the theoretical basis for fishery management must be improved. The theory of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) has failed for many 

groundfish species. This theory posits the existence of a curvilinear relationship between spawner biomass and recruitment. Harvest policy recommendations based on 

the theory are very sensitive to the shape of this curve. However, actual data are 

highly variable. Hence, curves must be fitted to the data statistically, opening the 

door to uncertainty and various interpretations. This results in unreliable estimates 

of the catch rates and biomass levels expected to produce MSY. More effort should 

be directed at understanding the causes of variability in recruitment, including the 

influence of environmental conditions and ecological interactions. Fish populations 

cannot be modeled as if only spawner biomass mattered.

• Reform the management system

Reforming the management system may be the most difficult reform of all, but 

may be the most important. Some Council members took courageous stands in favor 

of precautionary management. But it seems unreasonable to expect people who represent the fishing industry to consistently support long-term sustainability and ecosystem protection, in the face of pressure to avoid short-term economic impacts that 

often accompany such policies. 

The make-up of the Pacific Fishery Management Council should better reflect the 

diversity of groups interested in the fisheries it manages, and in the ecosystems its 

policies affect. More scientists, conservationists, and consumer advocates should sit 

on the Council. NMFS should more rigorously implement the precautionary approach, and provide objective, apolitical oversight over the Council’s recommendations.

Senator WYDEN. Dr. Fujita, thank you. And I—I just—I want to 

let Ms. Goblirsch testify. I just want to note, given the fact that you 

just said it, and I say this appreciating a lot of the good work that 

Environmental Defense does. As you know, we work extensively 

with them. I know an awful lot of fishing families—an awful lot of 

people in the fishing industry—who have a tremendous commitment to sustainability and to conservation. I just want it understood that a lot of them are doing it, because they’re in it; because 

they want to have an approach for the long term that works, for 

the long term that works for both the viable natural resource and 

for economic needs. And, I just want to note for the record there 

are a lot of those folks out there, and I have been talking to them. 

Ms. Goblirsch, welcome. I really appreciate having you here 

today. You’re on the front lines and help the families in all this economic hurt. And it is certainly needed. 

So you can proceed. 

43

STATEMENT OF GINNY GOBLIRSCH, MARINE EXTENSION 

AGENT WITH OREGON SEA GRANT, PRESIDENT OF

NEWPORT FISHERMEN’S WIVES, AND BOARD MEMBER OF 

THE WOMEN’S COALITION FOR PACIFIC FISHERIES 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. Thank you, Senator Wyden. We appreciate you 

being with us today. 

My name is Ginny Goblirsch, for the record. I am an Oregon Sea 

Grant Marine Extension Agent and have been with Sea Grant for 

the past 24 years. I’m also a partner in our family fishing business. 

My husband is a long-time Oregon commercial fisherman. I’m active in our community and currently serve as the President of Newport Fishermen’s Wives and on the board of the Women’s Coalition 

for Pacific Fisheries. 

I would like to ask that my more-detailed written testimony be 

included as part of the testimony—— Senator WYDEN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. And so I’ve abbreviated what I’ve submitted. 

I have been asked today to address community assistance needs 

during this groundfish crisis. As you know, the economic consequences of the cuts in allowable harvest are being felt throughout 

our communities, from fishing vessels, fish plants, ports, support 

services, charter boats, and the community at large. The change 

and uncertainty facing our industry now is unprecedented and will 

likely be even more traumatic than the salmon crisis. 

We are in a very difficult transition period. The fishing industry 

of the future will be very different than the industry of today. On 

the West Coast and in Oregon, most fishing vessels and their crew 

are small, family owned businesses. Most families and businesses 

operate without the traditional safety nets that benefit most other 

workers: Workers comp, retirement, minimum wage, health care, 

and most recently in Oregon, unemployment. But without these 

safety nets, a crisis such as this becomes even more difficult for industry families. Those who feel the most immediate and direct impact are vessel, plant, and support service workers, as the majority 

of their work is connected to groundfish. 

Oregon has created a safety net of sorts for people who find they 

want or must leave the industry. In fact, I would say the State of 

Oregon has done an outstanding job in supporting this industry 

and looking ahead to provide assistance, from the Governor’s Office 

to state agencies. They’re really ahead of the ball on this one. 

The Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program got under way last 

spring. It is to provide a way for the fishing industry to better connect with existing job retraining programs and other community 

services. I want to emphasize here that what we’re doing is connecting industry members with programs that are already funded 

and already in place that benefit displaced and other workers. And 

traditionally, the fishing industry folks aren’t used to working with 

some of these agencies. So we’re helping to make that transition, 

helping the agencies understand this new client base for them. 

This program, the Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program, is 

based upon what we’ve learned from years of working with industry families and communities. Oregon Sea Grant is providing the 

leadership, in association with the Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Work Force Development, Oregon Economic and 

44

Community Development, and the Oregon Employment Department, Fishermen’s Wives. Others closely associated with the industry serve as outreach peers and industry advocates. Currently, a 

fisherman’s wife serves as the program coordinator. And that’s not 

me. That’s Connie. She’s here today. 

Community services available are not always adequate or delivered equally coast-wide, nor is this an easy process for those seeking services. You have to want to make a change in your life and 

be motivated to do so to be successful. And those are the people we 

really want to work with. 

We are making progress in addressing barriers that have excluded the fishing industry from these services in the past. Fifty 

industry people, including some fishermen’s wives, are currently 

seeking or receiving re-employment services of some kind or another. What we’ve found, however, is that the major barrier to fishermen and others in the industry who are interested in 

transitioning out of the industry through job retraining is a lack of 

income during training. Because most are considered self-employed, 

few fishermen or their wives are covered by state unemployment. 

Oregon’s spending plan for the Community Assistance Funds appropriated by Congress—thanks to your efforts—addresses this 

barrier by establishing a transition income fund. No agency will 

take overhead expenses out of these funds. All funds go directly to 

people who need it. 

I also want to underline please followup on finding out where 

they are. A question was asked earlier about—did Oregon file the 

proper paperwork. We did the spending plan and, in fact,—got it 

in very quickly——

Senator WYDEN. You’re talking about the disaster money. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. The what? 

Senator WYDEN. You’re talking about the disaster money. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. Yes, the disaster, the one point—I mean part of 

the $5 million. 

Oregon submitted a spending plan late in October. And we 

asked, at that time, if Oregon had to wait for the other two states, 

because we already had an outreach program in place. And NMFS 

was going to find out whether we had to be all together, before we 

could move forward. But anyway——

Senator WYDEN. Did they get back to you on that? 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. No. 

Senator WYDEN. So you actually had discussions with them 

about getting Oregon’s share of the disaster money, and Oregon 

was ready to go. They said they would get back to you, and you 

haven’t heard anything. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. We—yeah. We submitted a written spending 

plan, in addition to the discussions on how Oregon would administer the funds. 

Senator WYDEN. If you would get me a copy of the written spending plan, I will submit that for the record. Because, of course, that 

runs contrary to what we heard NMFS say earlier. And I appreciate your telling me that. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. Thank you—one of the reasons—one of the many 

reasons we look forward to your visit today. 

45

As you know, the Pacific Fishery Management Council released 

its Strategic Plan for groundfish last summer. That Plan calls for 

reducing the overall number of commercial groundfish vessels by at 

least 50 percent. As this unfolds, either in a planned, orderly way 

or through rolling bankruptcy, the ability to connect displaced fishery workers with community support services will be even more important. 

So as we look to next year and the following years, we expect 

that at least tripling Oregon’s Community Assistance Funds for 

transition income will be needed. Again, I would like to emphasize 

that this is basic assistance, which makes community services already in place go a lot further to help displaced workers. We would 

like to continue to work with you and your staff to address these 

needs. 

But providing transition income support is only one part of how 

community assistance plans work. It’s important to combine this 

with other approaches, such as fleet restructuring or buybacks and 

collaborative research. Both fleet restructuring and collaborative 

research will benefit by having—by partnering with the Groundfish 

Disaster Outreach Program, as again we will be able to leverage 

training funds and other necessary funding opportunities through 

other agencies to help industry workers either participate in collaborative research or, as part of the fleet restructuring, exit the 

industry. I have more remarks on that in my written comments. 

Senator WYDEN. Okay. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. During an industry downturn such as this, 

stress on families becomes intense. The potential for family breakups and worse increases without access to good family counselling. 

During the salmon crisis in 1994, the only access to family counselling here in Newport was by dialing 911 to get into the county 

emergency medical health system. 

We prefer to offer counselling long before a 911 situation arises. 

One of the reasons this industry does not have access to counselling is the high cost of these services. Usually, these costs are covered in a good health insurance plan. Over the years, several industry organizations have attempted to put together and administer a group health plan for at least a portion of the industry. The 

latest effort was by the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries. We 

spent almost 4 years in data gathering, planning, and coordination 

for a group health plan for the entire West Coast fishing industry. 

This plan was unveiled in the fall of 2000 and was carried by the 

only major carrier capable of administering such a plan on the 

West Coast, Regence Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Other industry associations helped the coalition with significant financial contributions 

to get the plan off the ground. Sea Grant also provided a lot of 

funding for some of the data gathering, as did the Pacific States 

Marine Fisheries Commission. 

However, Blue Cross notified us that they were pulling out of the 

plan the Friday before Christmas, 2 months after they offered the 

plan up to the industry. The official reason given was that we did 

not have enough people enrolled in the plan to continue. But there 

was much more to it than that. We learned a lot about the business 

of health care, turf battles between various Blue Cross providers, 

46

competing costs of various plans within the same company, and 

health care politics. 

There’s much more to this than I could talk about here on stage, 

but I encourage you, Senator Wyden, to continue your efforts to address the need for affordable health care for all citizens of the 

United States. We do appreciate your efforts. 

Had the Coalition been successful, two of the needs of the industry would have been covered, health care and counselling. This is 

something the industry tried to do for itself, did not ask for federal 

funding or assistance, and ran right into insurmountable barriers. 

We’d be pleased to provide you further details on it. 

Senator WYDEN. Okay. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Goblirsh and material pertaining 

to the aforementioned spending plan follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GINNY GOBLIRSCH, MARINE EXTENSION AGENT WITH

OREGON SEA GRANT, PRESIDENT OF NEWPORT FISHERMEN’S WIVES, AND BOARD

MEMBER OF THE WOMEN’S COALITION FOR PACIFIC FISHERIES

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Ginny Goblirsch. I have 

been with Oregon Sea Grant for the past 24 years, serving as a marine Extension 

Agent for the past 14 years. I have lived and worked in Newport, Oregon that entire 

time. I am also a partner in our family fishing business. My husband is a long time 

Oregon commercial fisherman. My work with the fishing industry is in the area of 

outreach, training and education. I’m involved in many facets of the industry from 

gear, technology and management to family and community issues and safety. In 

recent years, much of my effort has been in the areas of fishing family and community issues, and fishing vessel safety. I am active in our community. I serve on the 

Newport Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and the Oregon Coast Community College Small Business Development Center Board of Directors. I am currently 

the President of Newport Fishermen’s Wives and serve on the board for the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries, a coast-wide (West Coast), multi-gear fishing industry support organization. 

I have been asked to address the potential short- and long-term solutions to aid 

fishing communities while the fishery recovers and to make comments on associated 

needs. 

Background 

Groundfish have been the backbone of our fishing industry for some 20 years. The 

economic consequences of the cuts in available harvest are being felt throughout our 

communities—from fishing vessels, fish plants, ports, support services and 

charterboats to the community at large. The change and uncertainty facing the entire fishing industry now is unprecedented and will likely be even more traumatic 

than the salmon crisis. 

The groundfish quota cutbacks over the last several years have resulted in families and businesses using up their savings, deferring maintenance on vessels (and 

at home), delaying payment of bills and taxes and otherwise trying to just hold on. 

Some of these families/businesses have no reserves left. This means that the 

changes now occurring in the industry are even more difficult to absorb, causing a 

great deal of family stress. These situations tear families apart. 

No amount of aid will take the place of a business, a lifestyle and a livelihood 

that has defined and supported our coastal communities since the coast was first 

settled. The transition now occurring is and will be very hard on many families. 

These families and businesses operate without the traditional safety nets that benefit most workers in our society—worker’s compensation, retirement, minimum 

wage, health care benefits, and, most recently, unemployment. 

The degree to which families and businesses depend on income from the groundfish fishery will directly impact their ability to transition through this period successfully. Those who will suffer the most immediate and direct impacts are family 

fishing businesses and fish processing plant workers where the majority of their 

work is connected to the groundfish fishery. 

Unfortunately, this situation is reminiscent of what happened to the farm families 

impacted by the farm crisis in the Midwest in the 1980’s. Obviously, financial probVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
47

lems were enormously difficult for these families and many delayed taking action 

and making decisions—about staying in or leaving their industry—until all their options had run out and they had no choice. Farmers felt humiliated. They had lost 

control of their lives and their ability to make decisions. They were strong willed, 

independent people, much like fishermen. They felt self-condemnation for their inability to take charge of their lives. Family and financial advisors, familiar with the 

industry, would have been very helpful for these families. Many families were too 

close to their own problems to be able to make good decisions early on. We believe 

we can and should learn from these farm families, the Government’s response, and 

take some innovative approaches. 

We did just that in 1994 when Oregon Sea Grant provided funding for a unique 

peer outreach project called the Fishing Families Project (Project). We thought of 

the Project as ‘‘support centers without walls.’’ The Project worked directly with 

fishing families in Oregon’s port communities to provide practical information on 

ways to deal with the economic, personal and social stresses that are a part of the 

‘‘normal, cyclical nature’’ of the commercial fishing industry. An important component of this project was the Fishing Family Coordinators. They were fishing family 

members who lived in coastal ports and, together with Oregon Sea Grant personnel, 

were able to identify and direct Project activities that directly addressed needs and 

interests of fishing families. These needs included budgeting in a cyclic industry; 

debt consolidation/taxes; diversification/business management; fishing marriage/absentee partner; coping skills/stress/anger management; grants/direct aid; health insurance and communication skills. 

The Project also worked directly with community resource providers and agencies 

to enhance their understanding of the fishing community, needs of fishing families, 

and focused attention on the barriers fishing families encountered when attempting 

to obtain existing services. Concurrently, the Project brought information to fishing 

industry families about existing resources available in their communities to help 

with their business and family needs. The Project also conducted research on the 

importance of fishing community networks and provided fishing business and family 

members with training in forming or strengthening effective support networks. 

Community-Driven, Short-Term Solutions 

The success of the Project’s outreach model led to discussions in 1998 with Statelevel community resource providers about how to incorporate this peer outreach 

methodology into fishery-related disaster relief plans. A team of state and local partners worked collaboratively for a year to create a possible approach. With the support of the team, the Community Services Consortium in Newport initiated a small 

pilot program in January 1999 where an ‘‘Outreach Peer’’ would reach out to those 

in the industry who were ready to transition out of the industry due to the everincreasing groundfish cutbacks. Due to this pilot’s success, by fall of 1999, we finalized a coast -wide pilot program in response to the anticipated West Coast groundfish disaster. Beginning in the spring of 2000, the ‘‘Groundfish Disaster Outreach 

Program’’ (GDOP) connected existing training resources and community programs 

to those impacted by the groundfish crisis. The GDOP is administered by the Oregon Sea Grant Extension Program with funding support from the Oregon Economic 

and Community Development Department, Oregon Dept. of Community Colleges 

and Workforce Development (WIA), and Oregon Sea Grant Extension. An Advisory 

Committee, with members from State and local Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

service delivery areas, Oregon Economic and Community Development, Oregon Employment Department (OED), Oregon Sea Grant Extension and the GDOP Program 

Coordinator, provides guidance to the GDOP. The GDOP has been operating successfully now for 8 months. 

Industry members who find they either want to or have to transition out of the 

groundfish fishing industry—and want help in making the transition—can turn to 

the GDOP for that assistance. The purpose of the GDOP is to create, deliver and 

evaluate a peer outreach program that assists people in accessing support, resources 

and training and assists community resource providers in effective outreach through 

improved communication to this population who are in need of support. 

In May 2000, the Governor of the State of Oregon convened a meeting of State 

agency heads as well as community and industry leaders. The purpose of this meeting was to brief agencies on the groundfish crisis; to assess the crisis and make recommendations as to how each state agency can best participate in the GDOP 

through directing their services to help those needing assistance; and to identify 

barriers to services. The GDOP hosted follow-up port meetings with local service 

providers to brief them on the crisis, address industry barriers to services and identify how to link support services that they provide with the GDOP and the fishing 

community. 

48

The GDOP has a coast-wide (Oregon) Coordinator. The Coordinator is a fisherman’s wife and family business partner. She works with people in groundfish fishing 

businesses who want to transition into the future industry as well as with those who 

want to transition out of the industry.

There are Six GDOP Outreach Peers who are closely associated with the fishing 

industry and in the process of transitioning out of the industry themselves. Each 

Outreach Peer works part-time in one of seven regions along the coast informing 

and mentoring people in groundfish fishing businesses who want to transition out 

of the industry. They provide information about community support options for 

those wishing to remain in the commercial fishing industry of the future. 

The Outreach Peers mentor fishermen, fishermen’s wives, processing plant workers, and others directly associated with the groundfish industry that want to leave 

the industry. The concept is to direct them to the assistance they need, and is available, be it personal or family support, re-employment counseling, or job retraining 

(as administered through WIA). In the short time period the GDOP has been operating, over 100 fishing family business members have been directly contacted, 58 

have been referred to agencies/resources and 29 are now enrolled in services. 

This is a community-driven program that seeks to connect services to a new audience for many of the community support agencies. We strive to get the most out 

of existing services and to see to it that these services meet, as much as possible, 

the needs of the fishing industry. The services available are not always adequate 

or delivered equally coast-wide. We are making progress in addressing the many 

barriers that have excluded the fishing industry from these services in the past. 

However, THE major barrier to fishermen, and others in the fishing community 

who are interested in transitioning out of the industry via job retraining is the lack 

of income during training. Because most are considered self-employed, few fishermen/wives are covered by state unemployment and there exist no other sources of 

income for them while in training. Because of this unfortunate situation, the State 

of Oregon submitted a Spending Plan for FY 2000 Emergency Appropriations for 

Oregon’s share of the $5 million specifically earmarked for community assistance. 

To date, we have had no response from NMFS regarding when the funds will be 

released. The spending plan establishes a transition income (TI) fund for individuals 

to use to cover living expenses while transitioning out of the industry. TI will only 

be available for applicants who have developed an approved re-employment or retraining plan for their future in non-fishery related employment. 

Target Audience for Transition Income 

It is challenging to accurately determine the number of people who might seek 

or need services because of the unusual rolling nature of this crisis and the various 

mechanisms people might or might not have to cope. This is not a plant closure 

where a set number of people know they will be unemployed on a given date. 

We do have data on the numbers of commercial fishing vessels in the State of Oregon having permits for groundfish or participating in the open access fishery. We 

also have data on other permits those vessels/owners have which can, in some cases, 

help to mitigate the impact of the crisis. We estimate that 108 commercial fishing 

vessels/businesses are at high risk of bankruptcy (permits limited to groundfish 

only) and another 79 vessels/businesses are at moderate risk (depending on their 

success in other fisheries). This represents 40 percent of the groundfish fleet in the 

State of Oregon and an estimated 400 people. Since not all will seek or need services but others in the industry will, our best guess at this time is that the GDOP 

needs to be responsive to the needs of 400 Oregon applicants. The numbers could 

go much higher if fish plant closures occur. The numbers could go lower if conditions 

permit success in other fisheries in which some of these businesses might also be 

involved. 

Our target audience for transition income in FY 2001 is 220 (roughly half of the 

400 applicants that have no access to other income/assistance). We are estimating 

that 35 percent of these applicants will be single; 65 percent will have families. 

We expect that once the funds finally do arrive in Oregon, they will very quickly 

be dispersed. The Oregon Employment Department has agreed to disburse the funds 

directly to fishermen and other groundfish workers with no agency overhead taken 

out. That means ALL funds go directly to help industry individuals. 

Long-Term Needs and Solutions 

As we look to community assistance needs for FY 01/02, we expect that tripling 

Oregon’s community assistance amount for TI assistance to industry individuals displaced by the groundfish crisis is needed. We would respectfully request $6 million 

dollars to help support the GDOP and directly aid industry individuals who must/

want to transition out of the fishing industry. 

49

The Pacific Fishery Management Council released a draft of its Strategic Plan for 

Groundfish in July of 2000. That plan calls for reducing the overall number of commercial groundfish vessels by at least 50 percent. The ability to continue to connect 

displaced fishery workers with community support services via the GDOP will be 

absolutely critical. 

In anticipation of the West Coast groundfish disaster declaration, a three-state 

committee was formed to recommend industry and community needs. This Committee met throughout 1999 with leadership provided by Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. The recommendations of this Committee covered three major 

areas: 1) family and community assistance, 2) research, and 3) fleet restructuring. 

These three areas are interlinked and all are needed for the smoothest possible 

transition to the future of our industry. 

A good plan and funding for fleet restructuring/downsizing is an important component of providing a path for a smooth transition to the future of our industry. 

This would tie directly into the GDOP by providing assistance to those who find 

themselves part of the group either forced out or who willingly choose to leave the 

industry. Knowing that such a plan is in place would be very helpful to fishing families and businesses planning for their futures. As was illustrated with the farm crisis, people need good information with which to plan their futures or they are left 

to hang on, possibly until they have no resources left. This leaves people feeling like 

failures and bankrupt. This also places added pressures on already struggling community support programs. The ability of people to make good decisions early on 

about the course of their future is imperative for a smoother transition and is beneficial to local communities. 

Family and community assistance would derive huge benefits from collaborative 

research. Not only is this a way to get the data that is critical to proper management of the groundfish industry, it also employs fishermen and their vessels. An expanded research program could potentially tie in with the GDOP with training opportunities leveraged by the GDOP to utilize existing Department of Labor training 

funds to obtain master’s/mates licenses, small business development training and 

other necessary facets of transitioning a strictly commercial fishing business into 

one which continues to commercially fish but also is hired for research and charter 

projects. A program like this is getting underway on the East Coast and should be 

considered for the West Coast. 

In many of Oregon’s coastal communities, access to personal, family, and financial 

counseling is limited. And, where it does exist, people are still unable to take advantage of it because of the high cost of such services. During an industry downturn 

such as this, stress on families becomes intense. Without access to good family counseling, the potential for family breakups and worse increases. During the salmon 

crisis in 1994, the only access to family counseling here in Newport was by dialing 

911 to get into the county emergency mental health system. We’d prefer to offer 

counseling long before a 911 situation arises. Lessons learned from the farm and 

salmon crisis illustrate the importance of access to good family and financial counseling. 

Because the industry has not had the benefit of group health insurance, many 

families cannot afford private counseling. They either do without any health care 

insurance or are inadequately covered. 

Recent research by Oregon Sea Grant indicates that 31 percent of fishing families 

are uninsured (this is almost three times the State average). And, although Oregon 

is fortunate to have the Oregon Health Plan and FIHAP, many fishing families do 

not qualify. For those who are insured, most have only major medical. 

Over the years, several industry organizations have attempted to put together and 

administer a group plan for at least a portion of the industry. The latest effort was 

by the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries (WCPF). WCPF spent almost 4 years 

in data gathering, planning and coordination for a group health plan for the entire 

West Coast fishing industry. This plan was unveiled in the fall of 2000 and was carried by the only major carrier capable of administering such a plan on the West 

Coast—Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield. However, Blue Cross notified WCPF that 

they were pulling out of the health plan the Friday before Christmas. The official 

reason given was that we did not have enough people enrolled in the plan to continue but there was much more to it than that. WCPF learned a lot about the business of health care, turf battles between various Blue Cross providers, competing 

costs of various plans, and health care politics. There is much more to this than can 

be provided here but I encourage you, Senator Wyden, to continue your effort to address the need for affordable health care for all citizens of the United States. Had 

the WCPF plan been successful, two of the needs of industry would have been covered—health care and counseling. This is something industry tried to do for itself, 

did not ask for federal funding or assistance and ran right into insurmountable barVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
50

riers. WCPF would be pleased to provide any and all information we can about this 

case to you. 

The farm crisis, the timber crisis and now the fisheries crisis have all shown that 

with appropriate support, people can successfully transition to the future. 

Thank you. 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

Portland, OR, September 22, 2000

Dr. STEPHEN FREESE, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Seattle, WA.

Dear Steve:

With the assistance of Oregon Sea Grant Extension Specialists Flaxen Conway 

and Ginny Goblirsch, we have prepared the enclosed request and spending plan for 

the FY 2000 emergency appropriation in response to the West Coast groundfish fishery disaster. 

As you are aware, the conservation measures and commensurate reductions in 

groundfish harvest opportunities in 1999 continued in 2000, and the latest stock assessments indicate further reductions will be necessary in 2001. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council’s draft Strategic Plan for groundfish calls for at least a 

50 percent reduction in fleet capacity to scale fishing back to match future expected 

harvests now that the fishery has gone through an extensive fishing down process. 

In recent years, many individuals and families have already had to make hard 

choices out of economic necessity and desperation. Council members and state fishery managers expect these conditions to persist during the foreseeable future. 

Federal appropriations for disaster relief are needed as soon as possible to assist 

those transitioning out of the industry. The $1,750,000.00 of federal funds will help 

provide the necessary support in direct benefits to qualified candidates to help them 

with the steps of the difficult process of leaving one’s livelihood, retraining, and 

transitioning to other jobs. The Department has identified appropriate match dollars 

and is prepared to commit its share of the $583,333.00 needed. Details of the different state match sources will be outlined in Oregon’s full grant proposal. Additional matching funds will also be available from Oregon Economic and Community 

Development Department, Oregon Sea Grant Extension, and Oregon Coastal Zone 

Management Association. 

I want to thank you in advance for consideration of this proposal for disaster relief. I look forward to working with you to implement this much-needed program. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES W. GREER, 

Director. 

CC: ROY HEMMINGWAY

DORIS PENWELL

FLAXEN CONWAY

GINNY GOBLIRSCH

NEAL COENEN

JIM GOLDEN

Spending Plan For FY 2000 Emergency Appropriation In Response to the 

Disaster in the West Coast Groundfish Fishery 

State of Oregon 

Situation 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), on behalf of the Secretary of 

Commerce, declared a commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

fishery on January 19, 2000. 

Congress appropriated funding of $5,000,000 in response to the disaster in the 

West Coast groundfish fishery. The states were specifically directed to use the funds 

to: 1) pay compensation to individuals who have suffered a direct negative impact 

from the West Coast groundfish fisheries disaster; 2) provide direct sustaining aid 

to such fishermen; and 3) provide assistance to communities that are dependent on 

the West Coast groundfish fisheries and have suffered losses from such disaster. 

Congress directed that the states of California, Oregon and Washington divide the 

funds between the three states in proportion to the impact of the disaster in each 

state. Discussions were held with the three State Fish and Wildlife Directors at the 

51

August 28–30, 2000 meeting of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and, 

with input from industry and congressional representatives, the states agreed to allocate the funds as follows: 35 percent each to California and Oregon, and 30 percent to Washington. This represents a sum of $1,750,000.00 to Oregon. A 25 percent 

($583,333.00) matching amount from Oregon is required to receive these funds. 

Oregon’s point of contact for its disaster aid program is James Greer, Director, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The funds are to be administered by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service in cooperation with the Oregon Economic and 

Community Development Department and/or Oregon Employment Department, and 

Oregon Sea Grant Extension. 

Background 

In anticipation of the West Coast groundfish disaster declaration, a three-state 

committee was formed to recommend industry and community needs. This committee met throughout 1999 with leadership provided by Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. Further assistance was provided by Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Sea Grant Extension. The recommendations of this 

committee covered three major areas: 1) family and community assistance; 2) research and 3) fleet restructuring. 

The experience and expertise brought to this group by Oregon Sea Grant Extension addressed the family and community assistance portion of the recommendations. Since 1994, Oregon Sea Grant has provided funding for a unique peer outreach project called the Fishing Families Project (Project). The Project worked directly with fishing families in Oregon’s port communities to provide practical information on ways to deal with the economic, personal and social stresses that are a 

part of the commercial fishing industry. An important component of this project was 

the Fishing Family Coordinators. They were fishermen’s wives who lived in coastal 

ports and, together with Sea Grant personnel, were able to identify and direct 

project activities that directly addressed needs and interests of fishing families. 

Needs identified by the families included budgeting in a cyclic industry; debt consolidation/taxes; diversification/business management; fishing marriage/absentee 

partner; coping skills/stress/anger management; grants/direct aid; health insurance 

and communication skills. The Project also worked directly with community resource providers and agencies to enhance their understanding of the needs of fishing 

families and address barriers fishing families met when attempting to obtain services. Additionally, the Project brought information to fishing industry families about 

resources available in their communities to help with their business and family 

needs. The Project also provided family members with training in forming or 

strengthening effective support networks. This training bolstered three Oregon fishermen’s wives organizations and helped to form the region-wide, multi-gear, multifisheries network called the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries. 

The success of the Project’s outreach model led to discussions in 1998 with community resource providers about how to incorporate peer outreach into fishery-related disaster relief plans. A team of state and local partners worked collaboratively 

to come up with a possible approach. With the support of the team, the Community 

Services Consortium in Newport initiated a small pilot program in January 1999. 

In fall of 1999, the plan was finalized for a coast wide pilot program in response 

to the anticipated West Coast groundfish disaster. Beginning in April 2000, the 

state of Oregon provided funding for a 7-month, coast-wide pilot program called 

‘‘Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program’’ (GDOP), a continuing program that promotes existing training resources and community programs. The GDOP is administered by the Oregon Sea Grant Extension Program with funding support from the 

Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, Oregon Rapid Response Program, and Oregon Sea Grant Extension. 

Innovative Response 

The purpose of the GDOP is to create, deliver and evaluate a peer outreach program that assists people in accessing support, resources and training and assists 

community resource providers in effective outreach through improved communication to this population who are in need of support. The audience includes people in 

the groundfish fishing business including fishermen, business partners (wives), fish 

plant workers, industry support service workers (gear stores, fuel docks, etc.), 

charterboat workers and local, state and federal resource providers. 

The leadership team of Flaxen Conway, OSU Department of Sociology, and Ginny 

Goblirsch, Marine Extension agent (and fisherman’s wife), both with Oregon Sea 

Grant Extension, will continue to direct the GDOP. In addition, GDOP employs a 

full time Program Coordinator, Connie Kennedy. The GDOP Coordinator, a fisherman’s wife, works with people in groundfish fishing businesses who want to transiVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
52

tion into the future industry as well as with those who want to transition out of the 

industry. Six GDOP Outreach Peers (much like the Fishing Family Coordinators, 

closely associated with the fishing industry and in the transition process themselves) work part-time in seven regions along the coast informing and mentoring 

people in groundfish fishing businesses who want to transition, out of the industry. 

They also provide information about community support options for those remaining 

in the industry. An Advisory Committee, with members from the Oregon Rapid Response Program, local Workforce Investment Act (WIA) service delivery areas, Oregon Economic and Community Development, Oregon Employment Department 

(OED), Oregon Sea Grant Extension and the GDOP Program Coordinator, provides 

guidance to the GDOP. 

In May 2000, the Governor convened a meeting of state agency heads as well as 

community and industry leaders. The purpose of this meeting was to brief agencies 

on the groundfish crisis; to assess the crisis and make recommendations as to how 

each state agency can best direct their services to help those needing assistance; 

and to identify barriers to services. The GDOP has also hosted port meetings with 

local service providers to brief them on the crisis, address industry barriers to services and identify support services available. The outreach peers mentor fishermen, 

fishermen’s wives, processing plant workers, and others directly associated with the 

groundfish industry that want to leave the industry. A key service is job-training 

programs for dislocated workers administered through WIA. In the short time period the GDOP has been operating, 97-odd industry members have been directly 

contacted, 52 were referred to agencies/resources, and 29 are now enrolled in services. 

The State of Oregon proposes to support the continuation of the successful 

Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program past the pilot ending date of October 31, 

2000. In this way, the state will not be creating a new program and development 

expenses will be kept to a minimum. Except for the Program Coordinator salary, 

all funds will go directly to people impacted by the disaster. The state supports that 

no administrative costs be incurred for this FY 2000 Emergency Appropriation.

Lessons Learned and Future Needs 

Three key things we’ve learned are substantiated by the success of the program. 

First, we have learned that working collaboratively to create this program has resulted in a response that is innovative and community-driven. Second, we’ve learned 

that THE major barrier to fishermen and others interested in transitioning out 

of the industry via job training is the lack of income during training. Most are considered self-employed, few fishermen/wives are covered by state unemployment and 

there exist no other sources of income for them while in training. Third, we’ve 

learned that peer outreach works.

State funding for the Outreach Coordinator ends on October 31, 2000. We believe 

that the Oregon Rapid Response Program will continue to provide funding for the 

outreach peers for as long as they can and they see benefits to their programs. Oregon Sea Grant Extension will continue to support GDOP project leaders Conway 

and Goblirsch. 

Because of the previous successes with peer outreach through the Fishing Families Project and the pilot GDOP, the State of Oregon proposes to use Oregon’s share 

of the disaster assistance funds to: 1) continue supporting the GDOP (not start a 

new program) through funding the Program Coordinator, and 2) provide transition 

income (TI) to industry members who want to transition out of the industry and 

who have accessed resources to help them develop a WIA/OED training plan for 

their future. 

Target Audience for Transition Income 

As previously stated, the target audience for the GDOP includes anyone directly 

associated with the groundfish industry that has suffered significant impacts (loss 

of revenue) as a result of the groundfish crisis. This includes commercial fishing 

businesses (vessel owners, operators and crew); their business partners (wives); fish 

plants (owners, managers and workers); charterboats (owners, operators and crew); 

and all support services (workers in gear stores, fuel docks and the like). 

How many people are we talking about here? Because of the unusual rolling nature of this crisis and the various mechanisms people might or might not have to 

cope, it is impossible to accurately determine the number of people who might seek/

need services. This is not a plant closure where a set number of people know they 

will be unemployed at a specific time. We do, however, have data on the numbers 

of commercial fishing vessels in the State of Oregon having permits for groundfish 

or participating in the open access fishery. We also have data on other permits those 

vessels/owners have which can, in some cases, help to mitigate the impact of the 

53

crisis. Therefore, we estimate that 108 commercial fishing vessels/businesses are at 

high risk of bankruptcy and another 79 vessels/businesses are at moderate risk (depending on their success in other fisheries). This represents 40 percent of the 

groundfish fleet in the State of Oregon and an estimated 400 people. Since not all 

will seek or need services but others in the industry will, our best guess at this time 

is that the GDOP needs to be responsive to the needs of 400 applicants. The numbers could go much higher if fish plant closures occur. The numbers could go lower 

if conditions permit success in other fisheries in which some of these businesses 

might also be involved. 

Our target audience for transition income is 220 (roughly half of the 400 applicants that have no access to other income/assistance). We are estimating that 35 

percent of these applicants will be single; 65 percent will have families. 

Spending Plan 

GDOP Program Coordinator 

$66,000.00 is needed to support the full-time Program Coordinator for 12 months. 

Included in this amount are salary and associated expenses (such as travel, phone, 

fax, email, postage and mailing) for a 12-month period. The Program Coordinator 

would continue the work as previously described. 

Funding would flow from NMFS directly to Oregon Sea Grant Extension in the amount of $66,000.00 for a 12-month period. No administrative costs (overhead) will 

be incurred during this period. 

Transition Income 

$1,684,000.00 would be used to establish a fund for transition income (TI) for individuals (a type of individual TI account) to cover living expenses for those 

transitioning out of the industry. TI will only be available for applicants who have 

developed a WIA/OED training plan for their future in non-fishery related employment. Criteria for this TI assistance distribution process and the assistance are: 

Design a process that is flexible and readily changed when improvements can be 

identified. 

NMFS disbursements should be made at least quarterly ($421,000 per quarter 

with the first allocation up front) so that the entities that administer this program 

do not have to use state funds and process reimbursement requests. 

Qualified applicants must certify that they are part of the groundfish industry either as a fisherman, business partner (wife), fish plant worker, charter boat worker, 

or support service worker and have been negatively impacted by the groundfish crisis. TI assistance will be limited to 6 months to 9 months or less per applicant depending on the job-training plan established. 

TI assistance will be based on a simple income verification process. For example, our recommendation is that an applicant with a family could receive $1,500/month 

if they had no other access to support (unemployment insurance). If the applicant 

has access to other support (unemployment under $1500/month) their TI allotment 

would be only the difference bringing them up to $1,500/month. For a single/nonmarried applicant, the allotment would be $1,000/month (with the same situation 

regarding access to other support). The recipients would be responsible for self-certifying their continued participation in the training plan and their need for this TI 

(through calling in and/or filling out forms on a bi-weekly or monthly basis). 

Final qualifying criteria and program administration arrangements will be specified in the State of Oregon grant application to NMFS. 

Funding will flow from NMFS directly to the Oregon Employment Department or 

to the Oregon Employment Department via the Oregon Economic and Community 

Development Department in the amount of $1,684,000.00. No administrative costs 

(overhead) will be incurred during this period. 

State Matching Contributions 

Since the commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast groundfish was declared 

on January 19, 2000, the State of Oregon has provided (and will continue to provide) 

a combination of in-kind and state direct matching funds in the amount of 

$583,333.00. 

Suggestions for State Match: 

The State of Oregon will document in its grant application to NMFS both in-kind 

and, possibly, direct matching funds. Here, the state has a number of options it will 

pursue:

1. Program, Support Development and Fishery Research Contributions

If expenditures since January 19, 2000 are allowed, the state can document up 

to $83,000.00 of in-kind expenditures developing a disaster relief response related 

54

to direct assistance and income support. In addition, the state can document approximately $124,000.00 in funding explicitly reviewed and appropriated by the 

Oregon legislature for groundfish research in response to the disaster. These 

funds for research have already been reviewed in a Groundfish Research Plan 

submitted to the Department’s legislative oversight committee and approved for 

projects initiated for the Spring and Fall of 2000, and the Spring of 2001.

These projects focus on the areas of maturity by catch, gear and genetic studies 

designed to improve stock assessments. The amount identified includes only the 

amounts expected to be paid directly to fishermen for at-sea contract charters and 

do not include the Department’s personnel services or overhead costs. These costs, 

if allowed, would represent an additional $247,000.00 in direct matching expenditures. The total above represents a matching amount of $454,000.00.

The state can also document $35,000.00 of direct matching funds for the GDOP 

Program Coordinator salary and expenses from May 1, 2000 until October 31, 

2000 from the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. 

2. Expected In-Kind Contributions 

Other in-kind contributions following grant approval are expected throughout calendar year 2001 in amounts similar to program development costs (i.e. 

$83,000.00). 

3. Emergency Appropriations Board Direct Allocation 

The state’s third option for match is to approach the legislature’s Emergency Appropriations Board for a direct allocation. In this event, the direct payments for 

those individuals transitioning out of the groundfish fishery would extend Oregon’s proposed program.

Suggestions for Timeline 

The Pacific Fishery Management Council has just announced further harvest reductions expected for the fishing year beginning January 1, 2001. The State of Oregon’s objective is to bring this assistance program online at that time. Our goals 

and timeline are as follows:

1. October 15, 2000 or before: Appropriation Committee release of funds to NMFS. 

2. October 15, 2000 to November 30, 2000: State of Oregon grant application process to NMFS (with Oregon documentation). 

3. December 30, 2000: NMFS grant approval. 

4. January 15, 2001: Start Oregon program delivery. 

Findings for Supplemental Appropriations Guidance and MSA S.312 (a) 

Compliance 

Authorized Appropriations Purposes in Bill and Report Language 

The State of Oregon’s proposed spending plan will provide direct compensation to 

individuals and families for lost income resulting from significantly reduced fishing 

opportunities. The state’s program intends to sustain this aid over a period of time 

needed and suitable to obtain job training for alternative occupations outside the 

fishing industry. 

In the event of additional, larger appropriations, the state’s program could be expanded to compensate for the other types of losses and community assistance programs such as job development. 

MSA Section 312(a) requires that disaster assistance prevent a future fishery failure and assist a community or restore the fishery and assist a 

community. 

The State of Oregon program seeks to prevent a future fishery failure and assist 

a community. The usual declining fishery cycle often results in fishers waiting for 

an upturn in one fishery by shifting to other fisheries or related activity. While this 

may have worked in the past, present circumstances indicate no flexibility exists in 

other major West Coast fisheries (salmon, crab, and shrimp). Therefore, the state’s 

program seeks to permanently remove fishers from the industry. This will result in 

less competition for the limited remaining jobs in fisheries and prevent future conflict and failure. 

In addition, the community of individuals and families dependent on the fishing 

industry will be aided directly through training for alternative occupations. The 

community at large will also benefit directly and indirectly by having displaced 

workers prepare to continue as productive employed members of the community.

55

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Goblirsch, thank you very much. You’re an 

excellent advocate for the families, and we really appreciate that. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Eaton, a couple questions for you, first on 

this observer issue. My understanding is that there are some differences of opinion between how the big boats and the small boats 

look at this issue. The larger boats have some concerns about having to have to pick up some of the costs for the observers, and some 

of the smaller boats not having the same responsibilities with respect to observers. 

What do you think the ramifications of this are? Is this going to 

hinder the ability to get good data to not have folks on these small 

boats? And, I gather you probably can’t get another body on some 

of these small boats, just in a physical sense. 

Mr. EATON. Thank you, Senator. That’s a good question. My understanding is that there are national standards that are established for observers and the vessels that they will go out on. And 

I think it is true that in most cases the larger vessels wind up taking the most observers. 

On our coast here, the larger vessels probably also catch the 

most fish. For instance, I’ve seen a number which indicated that 

trawl vessels, which are going to be the largest on our coast, catch 

90 percent of the fish, or something like that. So you know, practically speaking, there probably ought to be more observer emphasis placed on this. 

In 2000, last year, there was a U.S./Canada observer conference 

held in St. Johns, Newfoundland. Our organization attended that. 

We were the only non-profit organization from the West Coast. We 

were the only conservation group from anywhere in the United 

States to attend that conference. And we were specifically invited 

to be there. 

Over 3 days we learned an awful lot about observers. One of the 

things was that in terms of implementing an observer program 

that reaches through all of the fleets, the vessel size does not have 

to be a limiting factor; there are models around the world that can 

be used to observe smaller vessels where you can’t actually put 

somebody on board. 

The other thing I might add is that we were asked to make a 

presentation about the observer program on the West Coast. And 

our presentation was basically, ‘‘We want a program, but we don’t 

got one.’’ There were other countries at the conference smaller, 

third-world countries whose fleets were 100 percent observed. And 

they could not believe that we on the West Coast, with a fishery 

that was forty years old and as important as our fishery is, did not 

have an observer program in place. They couldn’t believe it. So 

we’ve got a long ways to go. 

Senator WYDEN. I thank you. I thank you for your testimony, 

and this is helpful. I obviously want to be fair to both the big boats 

and the small boats, in terms of funding this and structuring. We’ll 

be asking for your input on it. 

Mr. Fujita, a number of the fishermen have told me that by 

modifying their trawl here, there are areas of the ocean that are 

not fished and are essentially marine reserves right now. This is 

at least how they would define it. 

56

In your judgment, are these areas significant in size, and would 

it be possible to create new reserves to incorporate them and recognize some of what the fishing families are doing now and accommodate some fishing elsewhere? 

Dr. FUJITA. Thank you, Senator. I can’t comment on the significance of the size of these de facto reserves. I understand from fishermen that they have been successful. The trawl footrope regulation has apparently been successful at keeping trawl gear out of 

those rocky areas. And those are areas that are important biologically. I don’t know how big they are. But I would advocate incorporating those areas into a marine reserve system. Certainly it 

makes sense from an economic point of view, if they’re already 

being avoided. And biologically, it makes sense, because they probably incorporate very productive habitats. 

Senator WYDEN. I would just like to have recognition for what 

the fishing families are doing now. It seems to me your ideas are 

certainly worth exploring. I think you’ve heard me throughout this 

hearing say that I want us to figure out a way to have a sustainable fishery that’s sensitive both to environmental and economic 

needs, which is obviously easier said than done. But, it seems to 

me that when the fishing families are making headway, through 

modification of gear and those kinds of approaches, it ought to be 

recognized in some kind of way. 

The World Wildlife Fund is involved in gathering various places 

around the world in vessel buyout programs and efforts to be part 

of again an industry environmental coalition to find the funds for 

these programs. Where does your organization stand with respect 

to buyback and helping with the trawlers and others to build this 

kind of a coalition? 

Dr. FUJITA. Well, Environmental Defense, in general, favors market-based approaches to reduce fishing capacity. If you consider 

buyback programs and ITQs as different ways to approach essentially the same problem, reduced fishing capacity, we prefer to see 

ITQs with standards put in place. We think they’re more efficient. 

But we recognize that given the ITQ moratorium, buyback of the 

trawl fleet would be faster, if the funds could be made available. 

I think that if they’re properly constructed with some conservationoriented sideboards and also address the latent capacity and reduce 

the number of actual fishing vessels, not just the permits, we 

would be supportive and would join in the coalition to push the 

proposal. 

Senator WYDEN. We’ll be working frequently with you. You can 

be sure of that. 

Ms. Goblirsch, you were here when the National Marine Fisheries Services said that they might be able to get the disaster assistance to all these families in 11 months, 11 months time. You 

know Congress passed the legislation, and I gather that you all 

sent them applications quite some time ago. 

What’s your reaction to what you heard from NMFS today? 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. I’m shocked. We actually naively thought perhaps we’d see the funds as—by mid-November or certainly—or the 

end of November. Because we had funding in place, state funding 

in place, to continue on that went so long. 

57

A lot of this is timing. The funds available from the other agencies have their own fiscal year. So in order to be the most beneficial 

to the most people all at the same time, timing is critical. And 

we’re getting way out of kilter here. The longer this goes on, the 

more difficult it’s going to be. 

But to say disaster relief funds take a year to reach the site of 

the disaster is pretty bizarre, I think. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I can tell you I’ll be following this up with 

Senator Smith right away. I want you to know, as you leave here 

today, that we are just going to go after this in every way possible. 

It just seems to me to send the worse possible message that here 

is an agency that has its budget doubled by the U.S. Congress and 

now will come on in and basically say they will try to get disaster 

assistance out in about a year. 

I was not aware of the fact that you all sent application materials in November. Of course, we were led to believe earlier in this 

hearing that that wasn’t the case; that we were still awaiting grant 

applications. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. We got on it right away. 

Senator WYDEN. Pardon me? 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. We got on it right away, as soon as we heard 

back from your office that they had been appropriated. 

Senator WYDEN. I just want you to know that we are going to 

be very aggressive in staying after this. We are going to liberate 

those dollars——

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN.—for where they were intended to go. And that’s 

to families that are hurting. 

I also want you to know I’m going to followup on this health care 

issue. Health care has been sort of my special passion since my 

days as Director of Oregon Gray Panthers. 

My understanding is that in that case, in the example that you 

were talking about, there was never any money allocated from the 

government to assist in this. You were just trying to get a private 

plan using essentially the group, in order to make sure they had 

some bargaining power and some leverage. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. Representing 50,000 families on the West Coast 

and Alaska, yes. 

Senator WYDEN. Because I think as you’re aware—and they’re 

still working out some of the developmental details—Senator Kennedy was actually able to get some funds for fishing families in 

New England. They haven’t gotten the Plan yet, because of some 

bureaucratic problems, but it seems to me that what you’re asking 

for should again, utilizing the marketplace kinds of principals, be 

something doable. And, I’ll follow that up. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. We did think a little bit about asking for some 

assistance. But what was happening with groundfish and all the 

needs, funding needs, we didn’t want to come in and ask for more 

money. And we felt that given a fair plan, that we could be successful. What we had the most problem with was basically the politics 

of the companies. 

Senator WYDEN. What is your sense about why Blue Cross and 

Regence pulled out at the end? 

58

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. You know, I’d really rather not testify to that on 

stage, because we’re still in some negotiations with them. 

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t I offer up that—— Ms. GOBLIRSCH. I think it needs to be addressed again. 

Senator WYDEN.—if you want a United States Senator to help 

spur the discussion—— Ms. GOBLIRSCH. That’s why I brought it up. 

Senator WYDEN. I hereby volunteer. 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. The last question that I have for you, 

Ms. Goblirsch, involves a policy issue. Apparently, in New England 

some of the fishing families have been successful in qualifying cooperatively as researching an emerging industry, which has made 

them eligible for assistance. 

Are you interested in trying to do the same sort of thing on the 

Oregon Coast? 

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. My colleague, Flaxen Conway, and I were in a 

telephone discussion with David Bergeron, who is with the Massachusetts Fisherman’s Partnership, and we talked to him last week. 

He was talking about collaborative research funds that are coming 

into the East Coast or the Northeast, where fishermen have to be 

involved in 75 percent of the research. And because they have been 

able to define collaborative research—get this—as an emerging industry, they could leverage Department of Labor funds to provide 

training to crews to do the research or to get masters or mates licenses, in running a small business, to diversify the fishing business to something that other—that commercial fishes but also does 

research and charters. And so yeah, emerging business. 

Senator WYDEN. We will get on that——

Ms. GOBLIRSCH. So we thought there was potential on the West 

Coast to do something similar. 

Senator WYDEN.—with you as well. My understanding was that 

it was moving forward on the East Coast, and I think we ought to 

take a look at it. 

Unless you all have anything further, we’ll excuse you now. 

Thank you all. 

The third panel, Steve Bodnar, Coos Bay Trawlers; Michelle 

Longo Eder, who is a lawyer and from a private fishing family; 

Ralph Brown, groundfish trawler; and Rod Moore, seafood processor. 

Senator WYDEN. Welcome all of you, and thank you for your patience. I’m going to adhere to the time rules, so I can get questions 

for the audience. We’ll look forward to talking to all of you. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE BODNAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COOS 

BAY TRAWLERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. 

Mr. BODNAR. My name is Steve Bodnar. I represent the Coos Bay 

Trawler’s Association. And this is my anecdotal testimony today. 

And I present it that way, because usually anything that fishermen 

say is anecdotal. 

Perhaps this is the never-ending question, because—the question 

of what caused the decline. It’s a never-ending question, because it 

depends on one’s own perspective. First, addressing the official 

term environmental groups had submitted into the Magnuson-SteVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
59

vens verbiage, ‘‘overfishing,’’ points to the harvesters as the culprits 

of the depleted stocks. However, the Magnuson-Stevens Act now requires overfishing terms to be used any time the stock—a stock is 

depleted, no matter what the cause. 

The government’s and managers’ willingness to blame the fishermen and appease the environmental groups leads the industry to 

believe that Congress is so gullible that it is willing to hold no 

managers accountable for fishery mismanagement. Fishermen have 

only done what the law and the managers have allowed us to do 

for over 20 years. The fishermen of this nation feel that the partnership created to free our waters of foreign fleets has backfired in 

our faces, and the government has set us adrift to fend our ourselves. 

The managers are the real culprits of the fishery demise, because 

they are not held accountable for decisions. What would the 

public’s perception be today if the official term that was put in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act was mismanaged species for any depleted 

stock? 

Another perception conveyed by the budget structure that affects 

how fishermen feel about management and—and their scientists is 

the fact that the majority of—a major part of the National Marine 

Fishery Service’s budget is derived from Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, 

which comes from tariffs on imported fish. Instead, their money 

should come from the successful management of U.S. fisheries and 

not imported fish at all. The perception fishermen have is that National Marine Fisheries Service deliberately lowers quotas to increase the imports to increase their budget. 

The level of science that managers use to determine harvest levels could fit into a thimble; and yet, they call it the best science 

available. The science community is as scattered as the fishing 

fleet itself. Oceanographers rarely talk to the biologists and visa 

versa. 

If the science is to be believable, then the fishermen need to be 

an integral part of the data collection system. Most managers in 

science believe that fishermen cannot be trusted to gather the data, 

whether they do it all alone or while there’s an agency personnel 

on board. Data gathering used for fishery evaluation is mostly done 

by non-fishermen, agency personnel, where very small samples are 

taken and extrapolated to paint a picture of the entire ocean. The 

data is then manipulated with computer synthesis, and the final 

results of the evaluation studies are presented as gospel by people 

that rarely, if ever, go out to sea. The results are often on the other 

end of the spectrum of what fishermen see every day on the ocean. 

So fishermen have a hard time believing what they hear, rather 

than what they see. 

Ocean conditions may have had a hand in the declining fish. 

Warming oceans and shifts in the warm spot locations change the 

upwelling and currents. Fish move when conditions warrant it, and 

they cannot be found in their usually places. Just because fish 

aren’t where they were last year doesn’t mean the fish have disappeared off the earth. They have just moved and left no forwarding address. 

Impacts, every entity that fishes is impacted by the managers’

decisions. Sports fishermen as well as commercial fishermen are 

60

impacted. The coastal communities are also impacted in every way 

imaginable. Fishermen may have brought in $20 million to a community just 6 years ago. But today, that same community may only 

realize $5 million. That kind of money removed from small communities has very hard impact on, not only on community government, but also on schools, families, and most of the lives of the 

community, whether they fish or not. 

Short- and long-term solutions. The infrastructures of the communities are melting away. Processors, watching the quotas get 

lower and lower, have virtually removed the latent processing capacity from each community. Successful processors have lowered 

the price of fish, which has forced the small processors out of business. The more powerful processors buy out the now defunct 

plants, gut them, and close the doors forever. Jobs are lost and 

never replaced. 

The structures are left to rot as they—rot as they refuse to sell; 

because if they do sell it, they only increase their own competition. 

With the competition gone, lower prices are offered for the fishermen for their product. And when we try to resist the lowering of 

prices, we are told by the processors the processor can’t pay more, 

because the imported fish sells for less, and there is plenty of imported fish coming into this country. 

U.S. fish have to compete with foreign—with countries that subsidize their own fish efforts and with countries that have very little 

to no environmental regulations. The government needs to provide 

incentives to discourage imported fish of undermining the American fish-based economy. 

Our fishing—our fishery managers—managers have to change 

their relationship with fishermen. We need to be true partners in 

fishing management. We need to communicate with each other. We 

need to brainstorm together. We need to work together to improve 

the renewable resource. And we need to move beyond who is to 

blame and how—to how we can fix the system. 

The frustration level has reached such a high level that managers are starting to bail out of the system, and fishermen are 

going broke and being forced out of business. Scientists and managers say they don’t have enough information available about the 

whole fleet’s fishing practices. They proclaim that there are holes 

in data or data they don’t have a clue about. A law that requires 

all commercial fishermen to keep logbooks on all fishing trips. 

However, only the trawl fleet is forced to keep these records. All 

fishermen should be required to keep logbooks. 

Some of the holes in the data are data fishermen could record in 

their logbooks to help provide missing information. But, you know, 

Senator, we have never been asked to keep discard data. The managers’ answer is not mandatory logbooks for everyone with the required recorded data but an elaborative, expensive observer program. 

If the entire fleet were to require to have the new electronic 

logbooks operational on our books, then the managers would have 

100 percent fleet coverage of logbook information real time and, if 

utilized properly, would provide a vast amount of data that the 

managers don’t currently have, which could remove some of the uncertainty in our fishery management. 

61

We programs that would train fishermen and their families for 

new careers. We need to encourage replacement industries to move 

into these communities to take advantage of these displaced workers. We need tax relief for these—to these communities, so that 

they can take charge of the revitalization of their industrial areas 

that provide good family wage jobs. 

We want to thank you for working on amendments to the Capital 

Construction Fund, which was the first step to help some that feel 

that they are captured in the industry and can’t get out. One thing 

that can be done that is not a solution, but rather a reaction to 

management, and that is to reduce the fleet to a level that is more 

consistent with the harvest level. 

To most of us, the most important thing that needs to be done 

to ward off bankruptcy of fishing businesses is to help reduce the 

fleet through a buyback program. While the states need to cap the 

open-access fishery, all the fleet need to do—all the fleets need to 

be reduced. There is not enough fish to allocate the entire buyout, 

so some form of federal assistance is needed. 

About discards, the fishing industry has worked with you and 

brought forth a 20 percent rollover. We’d like to call this a soft trip 

limit. And I think that a soft trip limit should be implemented immediately with a 20 percent rollover, so that we can reduce the discards, which is—which we can’t go along with. There’s no overage 

program right now, because they cannot believe a fisherman would 

bring in some of their catch or proclaim their catch; and so the only 

way that an overage program will be allowed to go through with 

this Council is if an observer is on board, which is kind of absurd. 

Senator I have been working with Sonitrol, working with a surveillance camera that we are going to fund and put on a fishing 

vessel to see if a surveillance camera that’s non-tamperable with 

960 hours of record time can be used to look at the discard problem 

without putting expensive observer on board. 

Right now, for prevention and future, money must be made for 

the groundfish research that utilizes the true partnership of the 

science and fishermen. And we need to conduct a fleet buyback program. 

And I have a question that I can’t find an answer for. I was wondering what’s the ratio between fishermen and managers currently? And if we have an observer program, how is that going to 

change? I think that the Nation would probably be astounded by 

the ratio of managers to fishermen. And I certainly would like to 

know what that is. 

I’ve also written a proposal to a private funding company for a 

ride-along program. Because we feel that it is important to get the 

scientists out or the managers out from behind their computers and 

on to more fishing vessels. We need to have the managers have 

greater acceptance for what fishermen say, instead of writing everything off that we have to offer as anecdotal. 

And about the Strategic Plan, you’ve made comment about that. 

Sure, there was plenty of public meetings up and down the Coast. 

And I’ve attended every Strategic Plan meeting there was. And if 

I couldn’t make it, my boss went. And I must say that even though 

the hearings were there, they certainly limited the kind of input 

62

that they accepted. They heard, but they would not accept, no matter how often I got in their face. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bodnar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE BODNAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COOS BAY

TRAWLERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. 

What were the causes of the decline? 

Perhaps this is a never ending question because the causes are many and dependent on one’s own perspective. First, addressing the official term environmental 

groups had submitted into the Magnuson-Stevens Act verbiage, OVERFISHING, 

points to the harvesters as the culprits of depleted stocks. However, the MagnusonStevens Act now requires the overfishing term to be used any time a stock is depleted, no matter what the cause. The government’s and managers’ willingness to 

blame the fishermen and appease the environmental groups leads the industry to 

believe that congress is so gullible that it is willing to hold no managers accountable 

for fishery management. FISHERMEN HAVE ONLY DONE WHAT THE LAW AND 

MANAGERS HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO DO FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS. The 

fishermen of this nation feel that the partnership created to free our waters of foreign fleets has backfired in our faces and the government has set us adrift to fend 

for ourselves. The managers are the real culprit of our fishery demise because they 

are not held accountable for their decisions. 

Another perception conveyed by the budget structure that effects how the fishermen feel about management and their scientists is the fact that a major part of 

NMFS’s budget is derived from Saltonstall/Kennedy funds which comes from tariffs 

on imported fish. Instead, their money should come from the successful management 

of US fisheries not imported fish. The perception fishermen have is that the NMFS 

deliberately lowers quotas to increase imports. 

The level of science that managers use to determine harvest levels could fit into 

a thimble, and yet they call it the best science available. The science community 

is as scattered as the fishing fleet itself. Oceanographers rarely talk to the biologist 

and visa versa. If the science is to be believable then the fishermen need to be an 

integral part of the data collection system. Most managers and scientist believe that 

fishermen can not be trusted to gather the data whether they do it alone or with 

an agency personnel. Data gathered and used for fishery evaluation is mostly done 

by non-fishermen agency personnel where very small samples are taken and extrapolated to paint a picture of the entire ocean. The data is then manipulated with 

computer syntheses and the final results of these evaluation studies are presented 

as gospel by people that rarely, if ever, go out to sea. These results are often at the 

other end of the spectrum of what fishermen see everyday out on the ocean so fishermen have a hard time believing what they hear rather than what they see. 

Ocean conditions may also have had a hand in the decline of fish. Warming 

oceans and shifts in the warm spot locations changed the up-wellings and currents. 

Fish move when conditions warrant it and can not be found in their usual places. 

Just because fish aren’t where they were last year, doesn’t mean the fish have disappeared off the earth, they just moved and left no forwarding address. 

Impacts 

Every entity that fishes is impacted by the managers decisions. Sport fishermen 

as well as the commercial fishermen are impacted. The coastal communities are also 

impacted in every way imaginable. Fishermen may have brought in 60 million dollars to a community just six years ago, but today that same community may only 

realize 20 million dollars. That kind of money removed from small communities has 

a very hard impact not only on the community government but also on schools, families and most that live in the community whether they fish or not. 

Short/Long term solutions 

The infrastructures of the communities are melting away. Processors, watching 

the quotas getting lower and lower, have virtually removed the latent processing capacity from each community. Successful processors have lowered the price of fish 

which has forced smaller processors out of business. The more powerful processors 

buy out the now defunct plants, gut them and close the doors for ever. Jobs are lost 

and never replaced. The structure are left to rot as they refuse to sell because if 

they do they just increase their competition. With the competition gone, lower prices 

are offered to the fishermen for their products. When we try to resist the lowering 

of prices we are told the processors can’t pay more because imported fish sells for 

63

less and there is plenty of imported fish coming into this country. U.S. exported fish 

have to compete with countries that subsidize their own fish efforts and with countries that have very little environmental regulations. The government needs to provide incentives to discourage imported fish of undermining the American fish-based 

economy. 

Our fishery managers have to change their relationship with the fishermen. We 

need to be true partners in fishery management. We need to communicate with each 

other, we need to brainstorm together, we need to work together to improve this 

renewable resource. We need to move beyond who is to blame to how can we fix 

the system. The frustration level has reached such a high level that managers are 

starting to bail-out of the system and fishermen are going broke and being forced 

out of business. 

We need programs that would re-train fishermen and their families for new careers. We need to encourage replacement industries to move to these communities 

to take advantage of these displace workers. We need tax relief to these communities so they can take charge of the revitalization of their industrial areas that provide good family wage jobs. 

We want to thank you for working on amendments to the Capitol Construction 

Fund which was the first step to help bring some relief to some that feel they are 

captured in the industry and can’t get out. 

One thing that can be done that is not a solution but rather a reaction to management measures, is to reduce the fleet to a level that is more consistent with the harvest level. To most of us this is the most important thing that needs to be done to 

ward off bankruptcy of fishing business is to help reduce the fleet through a buyback program. While the states need to cap the open access fishery, all of the fleet 

needs to be reduce. There is not enough fish to allocate the entire buy-out so some 

form of federal assistance will be needed. 

Future Prevention 

Money must be made available for groundfish research that utilizes a true partnership with the scientist and fishermen.

Senator WYDEN. Well, I thank you. You make a number of 

points. I’ll have some questions for all of you. 

Clearly, it just defies common sense to not have asked you to voluntarily go out and collect overage data. If you just listen to some 

of this, it just takes your breath away that it’s just so obvious. 

Some of your people could do it, and some of your people couldn’t. 

Some of the data would be good, and some of the data would not 

be so good. But, at least there would be an effort to try some fresh 

approaches; same thing with things like these surveillance systems. Again, I don’t want to advocate that the federal government 

go out and spend vast sums of money on something without documentation, but they ought to be working with all of you to test 

some of these kinds of ideas out. 

Your testimony is very good, and I think you heard me ask in 

some detail about this question of putting people on the ground. I 

don’t think it’s acceptable to say that once or twice a year you’re 

going to send somebody to local communities, and the rest of the 

time everybody is going to be at a laptop in Seattle. 

So, we’ll work closely with you. Excellent testimony and I agree 

with many of the points that you’ve made. 

Michelle Longo Eder has been helpful to the Committee and this 

Senator on a number of occasions. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE LONGO EDER, SABLEFISH

FISHERMAN’S WIFE, VICE PRESIDENT OF NEWPORT FISHERMEN’S WIVES, AND MEMBER OF THE WOMEN’S COALITION 

FOR PACIFIC FISHERIES 

Ms. LONGO EDER. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

64

For the record, my name is Michelle Longo Eder. And I’m a fisherman’s wife, as well as a practicing attorney representing commercial fishing businesses. I serve as Vice President of Newport Fishermen’s Wives, and I’m a member of the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries. 

Before I get into the bulk of my testimony, Senator, I would first 

like to thank you for your efforts in obtaining an exception to the 

extension of the moratorium on individual fishing quotas for fixedyear sablefish on the West Coast. Fishermen in Oregon, Washington, and California owe you a debt of gratitude for your efforts 

as to obtaining an exception to allow stacking and to also make an 

exception so that the season length, previously 9 days over the last 

couple of years, will be able to be extended. That will help safety. 

That will help quality. It will help price. And it will enable—with 

the declining quotas, it will enable fishing businesses to combine 

some of these permits to reduce negative impacts on other groundfish for which there can be bycatch in some of these fisheries. And 

it will also allow us to economically combine some of these permits 

to make it financially a little bit better for some of the fisheries. 

And for that, we thank you. You made a commitment to help this 

fishery. The Pacific Council made a commitment to help this fishery, as well. And we are very appreciative. 

The sad news, though, is that National Marine Fisheries Service 

has indicated to us that it may have trouble implementing stacking 

for this upcoming season. And I know they’re going to make their 

best efforts to do so. They have told us that because of problems 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act that they may not be able to implement all of it for 2001. That is a discouraging message to us. 

I know that there are Council members and others constituents 

who are going to meet with National Marine Fisheries Service this 

week. And hopefully whatever roadblocks there are are going to be 

removed, so that we can get the relief in this fishery this year that 

we desperately need. 

In a second issue in regard to charter work, we have a couple of 

vessels, a small one, a 40-foot, and little bit bigger one, a 66-foot 

vessels. Both of these vessels have previously participated in doing 

research, both with the State of Oregon and their scientists, as well 

as some charter work with the federal government. 

However, that research and those opportunities are few and far 

between. And although there are many individuals who are pursuing research programs that can be of value to both the fishing 

industry and the resource as a whole, we don’t think there are 

enough of them. And we would support and encourage your efforts 

in encouraging National Marine Fisheries Service to respond to industry efforts for collaborative research. 

Having said that, the bulk of my testimony, Senator, will relate 

to capital construction fund issues. My husband, Bob Eder, and I 

own two vessels that are engaged in the groundfish fisheries on the 

West Coast, as well as shrimping and crab. We employ seven crew. 

Sablefish is one of the 83 groundfish species that is managed by 

the Pacific Council. And we use species-specific baited traps. Habitat-kind and resource-friendly in the deployment of this gear, there 

is virtually no bycatch of other species. And we also fish for pink 

shrimp with trawl gear, impacting the groundfish resource, as a reVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
65

sult of the bycatch of species other than shrimp. My husband also 

fishes with traps for Dungeness crab. 

Bob has been a commercial fisherman for over 25 years. It’s been 

his entire career. Our two sons, now 20 and 18, though pursuing 

their further education, have fished since they were young boys. 

Fishing is an indelible part of our family, our culture, and our community. We don’t intend to stop. 

Given that reality, I would like to direct my comments to ways 

in which the federal government can assist fishing businesses and 

the groundfish resource in the face of declining stock assessments. 

Our first priority would be to amend the Merchant Marine Code 

and the Internal Revenue Code to first allow fishermen to rollover 

funds from capital construction fund accounts into retirement accounts; second, allow fishermen to use capital construction funds to 

purchase limited entry-permits and/or individual fishing quotas or 

to fund buyback plans; and then third, allow fishermen who choose 

to remove their vessels and permits from the fishery to withdraw 

their funds from the CCF accounts without payment of penalty for 

non-qualified withdrawals. 

Why is this important? The capital construction fund was created 

in 1970 to allow vessel owners to defer income tax on profits from 

vessel operations, if the money is set aside in a special account that 

would be used to purchase or reconstruct a vessel. This program 

has had a significant effect on capitalization in the fishing industry. 

According to a report in July 1999 of the Federal Fisheries Investment Task Force, as of 1995, the last year for which data was 

available from NMFS, over $1.82 billion had been deposited into 

the program and about $1.58 billion withdrawn. There were 3,500 

active CCF agreements, and the net balances were about $250 million. 

These balances and the strict requirements for withdrawals create too much pressure to make new capital investments in fisheries 

at a time when the fishing industry is generally perceived to have 

excess fishing capacity. Congress could help by first removing those 

penalties for non-qualified withdrawals for those who choose to retire vessels and permits from the fishery. 

Second, by providing more flexibility in the use of these accounts, 

such as rollovers into IRAs; and third, allowing those who choose 

to stay in fishing a mechanism to fund market-based solutions, 

such as individual quotas and buyback plans, in order to support 

fleet reduction. 

In no way am I suggesting a termination of the Capital Construction Fund program. Fishing is a capital intensive business and requires a large amount of funds be available for reconstruction when 

necessary. Often, the capital requirements may exceed a given 

year’s profits. Dangers inherent in fishing make it crucial that vessel owners be able to make necessary changes to their vessels, regardless of the success or failure of a particular year. Vessels can 

require large, non-discretionary capital expenditures at unpredictable times. Banks aren’t always friendly, and they are never fast. 

Failure to promptly make the necessary adjustments to the vessel 

can jeopardize not only the existence of the business, but the safety 

of the crew as well. 

66

The CCF program has provided a means of meeting the unique 

needs of the fishing industry for the last 30 years. It’s now time 

to make some adjustments to the program that will allow fishermen to end their careers and to remove capacity from the fishery, 

if that is their choice, but to also provide flexibility to those who 

remain. 

During the last session of Congress, you, Senator, introduced a 

bill that would have allowed both the rollover of CCF funds into 

retirement accounts without penalty and would have allowed fishermen to withdraw their funds, if they removed their vessel and 

permits from the fishery. 

This session, I’d like to ask you to go one step further: Add to 

the bill language that will allow fishermen to use the funds for permit purchases, quota purchases, and buyback programs. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Longo Eder follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHELLE LONGO EDER, SABLEFISH FISHERMAN’S WIFE, 

VICE PRESIDENT OF NEWPORT FISHERMEN’S WIVES, AND MEMBER OF THE WOMEN’S

COALITION FOR PACIFIC FISHERIES

Mr. Chairman, Senator Wyden and Members of the Committee: 

I am a fisherman’s wife, as well as a practicing attorney representing commercial 

fishing businesses. I serve as Vice President of Newport Fishermen’s Wives and am 

a member of the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries. 

My husband, Bob Eder, and I own two vessels, 66 ft and 40 ft in length, that are 

engaged in the groundfish fisheries on the West Coast. We employ seven crew members and in 2000, had a crew payroll in excess of $400,000.00. 

We fish for sablefish, one of the 83 groundfish species managed by the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, using species-specific baited traps. Habitat-kind and 

resource friendly, in the deployment of this gear, there is virtually no bycatch of 

other species. We also fish for pink shrimp with trawl gear, impacting the groundfish resource as a result of the bycatch of species other than shrimp. My husband 

also fishes with traps for Dungeness crab. 

Bob has been a commercial fisherman for over 25 years. It has been his entire 

career. Our two sons, now 20 and 18, though pursuing their further education, have 

fished since they were young boys. Fishing is an indelible part of our family, our 

culture and our community. We don’t intend to stop. Given that reality, I would like 

to direct my comments to ways in which the federal government can assist fishing 

businesses and the groundfish resource in the face of declining stock assessments. 

Amend the Merchant Marine Code and the Internal Revenue Code to:

1) Allow fishermen to rollover funds from Capital Construction Fund accounts into 

Retirement accounts;

2) Allow fishermen to use Capital Construction Funds to purchase limited entry 

permits and/or individual fishing quotas or to fund buyback plans

3) Allow fishermen who choose to remove their vessels and permits from the fishery to withdraw their funds from the accounts, without payment of penalty for 

a non qualified withdrawal;

Why is this important? The Capital Construction Fund was created in 1970 to 

allow vessel owners to defer income tax on profits from vessel operations if the 

money was set aside in a special account that would be used to purchase or reconstruct a vessel. This program has had a significant effect on capitalization in the 

fishing industry. 

According to a report in July 1999 of the Federal Fisheries Investment Task 

Force, as of 1995, the last year for which data was available from NMFS, over 1.82 

billion had been deposited in the program and about 1.58 billion withdrawn. There 

were 3,500 active CCF agreements, and the net balances were about 250 million dollars. 

These balances, and the strict requirements for withdrawals, create too much 

pressure to make new capital investments in fisheries at a time when the fishing 

industry is generally perceived to have excess fishing capacity. Congress can help 

by first removing those penalties for non qualified withdrawals for those who choose 

to retire vessels and permits from the fishery; secondly, by providing more flexibility 

67

in the use of these accounts, such as rollovers into retirement accounts; and third, 

allowing those who choose to stay in fishing a mechanism to fund market based

solutions to fleet reduction. 

In no way am I suggesting a termination of the Capital Construction Fund program. Fishing is a capital intensive business and it requires large amounts of funds 

to be available for reconstruction when necessary. Often the capital requirements 

may exceed a given year’s profits. Dangers inherent in fishing make it crucial that 

vessel owners be able to make necessary changes to their vessels regardless of the 

success or failure of a particular year. Vessels can require large non-discretionary 

capital expenditures at unpredictable times. Banks aren’t always friendly, and they 

are never fast. Failure to promptly make the necessary adjustments to the vessel 

can jeopardize not only the existence of the business, but the safety of the crew as 

well. 

The CCF program has provided a means of meeting the unique needs of the fishing industry for the last 30 years. It’s now time to make some adjustments to the 

program that will allow fishermen to end their careers and remove capacity from 

the fishery, if that is their choice, but to also provide flexibility to those who remain. 

During the last session of Congress, Senator Wyden introduced a bill that would 

have allowed both the rollover of CCF Funds to retirement accounts without penalty, and would have allowed fishermen to withdraw their funds if they removed the 

vessel and the permits from the fishery. This session, I’d like to ask you to go one 

step further-add to the bill language that will allow fishermen to use the funds for 

permit purchases, quota purchases, and buyback programs. Then pass it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Senator WYDEN. Let us do this in the interest of time. I will 

make a commitment to you to look at that. 

Ms. LONGO EDER. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Brown—again, I’m going to have to limit 

you and Mr. Moore, just because I want to give the folks in the audience a chance to speak. In fact, I think what I’m going to do with 

this panel is waive questions, as well, to give time for the audience. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH BROWN, GROUNDFISH TRAWLER AND

PACIFIC COUNCIL MEMBER 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. I’m Ralph Brown. I currently own two 

trawlers. And I have been a member of the Pacific Fishing Management Program for about 4 years. It’s been observed that the problems with the groundfish started at about the time I got on the 

Council. That means I’m to blame. So if you want to know what 

happened, that’s apparently what happened. So if me getting off it 

would help, I’ll certainly volunteer to be part of that solution. It 

hasn’t been fun. 

Earlier I read over my written testimony. It’s just absolutely inadequate. And I’m going to try to supplement that a little bit. 

A year ago, a group of us got together to try to figure out what 

to do over the short term with this groundfish fishery. We came up 

with essentially a three-legged approach. The first would be improve research. The second would be community assistance. And 

the third is fleet reduction. It’s absolutely imperative. 

Just before I came up, I downloaded from the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s site an economic—a summary of the economic subcommittee’s scientific and statistical committee report on 

overcapitalization on the groundfish issue. I’d like to read two 

statements that I think are actually in a memorandum that was 

included with the report. The first, ‘‘Overcapitalization is the single 

most serious problem facing the groundfish fishery.’’ The second 

statement, ‘‘Problems associated with overcapacity will not be resolved by waiting for vessels to leave the fishery.’’

68

The reason for that last statement have to do with the latent capacity we dealt with earlier. And I don’t think it’s a secret to most 

of you that I’m a proponent of a buyback proposal that would not 

only buy groundfish permits, but buy vessels, groundfish permits, 

and any associated state permits that might go with that. 

I’m not going to go into great detail on what the elements of the 

program are. I am asking for your help in trying to get this implemented. I will address the one question you asked earlier, ‘‘Why do 

I think this program will work, when other buyback programs 

haven’t worked around the country?’’ And the primary reason is 

simply the degree of capacity we’re taking out compared to other 

programs around the country. 

The main program that people use for examples is what happened on the East Coast, where the buyback program really didn’t 

have much impact. But we need to look at the absolute numbers. 

You’ll hear from the program people that they took out 20 percent 

of the active capacity. But keep in mind that they say 20 percent 

of the active capacity. What they ignore is the 1,500 other permits 

down there waiting to come in. The difference in this program we 

have—we don’t have 2000 permits out there. We have a total of 

500 permits, roughly, in the groundfish fishery here. And our proposal is actually take two-thirds of those permits out, two-thirds, 

not half. 

The degree of reduction is so much greater than any other proposal, any other program, that we are taking the latent capacity 

out with it. We’re also, in our program, preventing spill-over into 

other fisheries, which was contentious in a previous program that 

we had. 

Why one third rather than one half as the Council Strategic 

Plan? The Council Strategic Plan basically said it takes about half 

to get to where we are now. We think we need to look ahead at 

some things that are coming down the road that we think are likely to happen that will further reduce the amount of available resource for the fleet. And we need to plan for those. 

So we started with the half, and we reduced it by an additional 

20 percent to account for the need for reserves (Marine Reserves) 

that we think will happen. We’ve reduced the other amount to account for the fleet funding observers. We reduced an additional 

amount to account for the fleet funding part of the science program. And we reduced an additional amount in order to simply return some dollars to the U.S. Treasury. When you get finished with 

all that, you end up with a third. 

We fully believe that eventually this fleet is going to have to basically fund its own management, or it’s not going to be a net gain 

to—the fishery will not be a net gain to the United States. It will 

be a net loss. And we have to become a net gain. I’ll stop at this 

point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH BROWN, GROUNDFISH TRAWLER AND PACIFIC

COUNCIL MEMBER

Good Afternoon Members of the Committee, 

I am Ralph Brown, from Brookings, Oregon. I have been involved with the fishing 

industry since I was a child, and I currently own two trawlers that fish out of the 

69

Port of Brookings-Harbor. I have also been a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the past four years. 

Like every one involved with the groundfish fishery, I have spent a great amount 

of time thinking about our problems and I am not really sure that I know what happened. 

Because we know that what we did do hasn’t worked, we need to be open to other 

kinds of management measures and avoid the temptation to do ‘‘more of the same. 

I have several ideas for approaches that we might try, but in the interest of time 

I will not go into them and instead focus on the one program that I think could 

accomplish the most at the least cost. 

We need to reduce this fleet. Capacity reduction was first identified as the councils top priority in 1994. Our strategic plan identified capacity reduction as the top 

priority. Last week our strategic plan implementation team met for the first time 

and once again recommended that capacity reduction be the highest priority issue. 

In fact, capacity reduction has been named the number one priority in nearly every 

fishery in the world, and yet it is the one aspect of management that this council 

has little ability to address. We need your help on this. 

Specifically, I am asking for your help in getting a fleet buy-back proposal implemented. 

We propose that the groundfish fleet be reduced to one third of its current size 

by purchasing the vessels and all associated permits, including permits for state 

managed fisheries. We propose that the funding for this program be share between 

the federal government and the industry with half coming from each. The federal 

government would need, additionally, to provide a loan to the industry that would 

be paid back over time in order for the program to be implemented quickly. 

The industry portion of the program would be split among the beneficiaries of the 

program. The primarily beneficiaries are the pacific groundfish, pacific pink shrimp, 

and dungeness crab fisheries. While the specific amounts that each would be required to pay could still be subject to negotiations, the general theme is that each 

would pay relative to the benefit received. 

At this time we estimate the cost of the program at around 50 million dollars but 

we need to do much more analysis to better pinpoint the true cost. 

We know that buy-back proposals have not been very successful in some areas of 

the country. The primary reason for this is that they have not been large enough 

to remove enough of the capacity in a fishery to achieve the intended benefit. We 

believe that this program is. 

In the past the trawl fleet had proposed that an industry funded buy-back be established that would have only removed groundfish permits. Opponents to that proposal pointed out that since vessels would not be removed they would go into other 

fisheries. We have not only addressed that issue, but are actually proposing that 

other fleets be reduced along with the groundfish fleet. 

We are asking for the government to help fund part of this program because 

frankly, the industry doesn’t have the ability to do it alone given the current state 

of the fishery. 

We first publicly presented this proposal in November at the Pacific Fishery Management Council Meeting. We have tried to get it to every segment of the fishery 

along the coast. The comments that we have received back have been overwhelmingly supportive. Many of these comments were from people that opposed our last 

buy-back proposal. We literally have only heard of one negative comment. 

In the interest of time I won’t discuss the benefits that we believe could be derived from this program but I do want to shortly address the cost. We believe that 

this could be the cheapest thing that the government could do to fix problems in 

the fishing industry. I will use one example to demonstrate. 

Senator Wyden was able to secure funding for an observer program last year in 

the amount of 2.5 million dollars. This is a program that we all agree that we need 

and we thank him for this. If that is all we do however, after ten years we will have 

spent 25 million dollars and still have the need for federal assistance for observers, 

as we will have done nothing to make the fleet more able to bear the cost of observers. If instead we spend the 25 million on fleet reduction, we can make the fleet 

profitable enough that they shoulder the cost of observers and therefore get fleet reduction and observers both. 

We have actually tried to plan a level of fleet reduction such that the fleet would 

have the ability to shoulder more of the cost of management than just the observer 

program but I think that this example is enough to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the program. 

In closing I know that this was an extremely short presentation of a big idea, and 

I would be happy to answer any questions. I would be extremely happy to work with 

your staff members to make this happen, and once again ask for your help on this. 

70

Thank you

STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator. For the record, my name is Rod 

Moore. I’m Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors 

Association. Our members process the majority of the groundfish, 

Dungeness crab, pink shrimp, sardines and squid that are landed 

on the West Coast. 

We talk a lot about disaster. What are we talking about? There’s 

two parts to it, really. Part one is that we don’t know how many 

fish are out there, and we don’t even have the tools to figure out 

how many fish are out there. 

Part two is the suite of economic and social effects that occur 

from precautionary management that’s adopted in response to the 

fact that we don’t know how many fish are out there. So it’s a twopart problem, and it’s going to require a whole multitude of solutions, many of which we’ve heard today. That’s one of the things 

about being last. A lot of people have already said things that you 

were going to put in your testimony. By the way, for the record, 

I do have some written testimony for the record, Senator—— Senator WYDEN. Without objection, it will be entered in its entirety. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator. 

Reduced harvests not only affect fishermen, they also affect seafood processors, my members, who are integral part of the communities in which they operate. Workers are laid off. Capital investments are kept idle. Utility usage—lights water, power—reduced, 

which could be great since the Governor is calling for energy conservation, but I don’t think he means this way. 

But that exacerbates the pricing structure problems for local utility companies and residential customers. Thinking about groundfish processing, you have to keep in mind that the same plants that 

process groundfish also process crab, shrimp, and other species. If 

those processors disappear, it will not only be the groundfish fleet 

that has no place to go. It’ll be the crab fleet and the shrimp fleet. 

Groundfish is the keystone that holds the West Coast fishing communities together. Take it away and everything collapses. 

So what do we do? Well, I have a few suggestions that I’ll summarize here briefly. First of all, we have to spend more effort on 

understanding ocean environmental processes. There’s a lot of talk 

about regime shifts and things going on in the ocean and so forth 

and so on. We’re not paying a whole lot of attention to it. It’s about 

time—especially in regard to Pacific groundfish—that we start 

looking at some of those things and seeing if by looking at ocean 

productivity we can have better predictions on what’s going to happen in the future and adjust our harvest levels accordingly. 

We need to get serious about collaborative research between the 

industry and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Last August, 

on behalf of several industry groups, I presented proposals asked 

for by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center. After talking to them about it for quite 

awhile, they sent it on to Silver Spring. It’s now disappeared into 

71

a black hole. How do you expect the industry to have any respect 

for collaborative research and the National Marine Fisheries Service, if they get this kind of attention? It’s similar to what we’re facing with the disaster relief fund that you covered earlier. 

We need to rectify the tremendous imbalance between spending 

on salmon recovery and spending on groundfish conservation and 

management. I don’t want to impugn those interested in salmon, 

but a nearly 1,000:1 ratio of spending on salmon recovery versus 

spending on groundfish conservation and management is somewhat 

embarrassing. As one of my members put it, with the amount we’re 

spending on salmon recovery in the Columbia and Snake systems 

we could dig a whole new river, free of dams, pollution, and so 

forth, and recover the salmon. Congress and the new Administration need to kind of get their priorities straightened out on this. 

We already talked about getting the money for disaster relief, 

and I appreciate the comments that you made and your pointed 

questioning of Ms. Darm, in terms of making sure we get the 

money for disaster relief, Senator. We appreciate it. 

We need to improve data collection. On the good news front, the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center should be commended for pursuing efforts to develop electronic logbooks and recording systems. 

The Center has also taken steps to improve collection and analysis 

of economic and social data, an area in which this region is lacking. 

Unfortunately, those efforts will be for naught, unless followthrough funding is made available. 

There are other—however, there are other data collection problems that need to be fixed, and most of these are at the state level, 

so I won’t go into them here. They’re covered in my written testimony. 

We need to fix the law so it reflects reality. You can’t simultaneously recover two or more species of fish that compete for the 

same ecological niche. You can’t recover a stock to levels that are 

no longer supported by existing carrying capacity. You can’t precisely calculate MSY and establish it as a constantly fixed point 

with no allowance for natural fluctuation. Unfortunately, that’s 

what the law and the implementing regulations expect us to do. 

Our Association, along with several other groups, including commercial and recreational interests around the country, developed 

some proposed changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act which addressed these problems; they are attached to my testimony. And I 

would like to point out, in reference to Rod Fujita’s remarks, that 

of the 14 members of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

there’s one working commercial fisherman, one working processor, 

and two working charter operators. So this strange influence that 

the industry seems to have over the Council process kind of baffles 

me. 

On the issue of individual quotas, we need to address them, but 

we need to recognize the investments made by processors and keep 

them economically viable. We appreciate, as Michelle said, your efforts on fixed gear sablefish. Unfortunately, I know your efforts on 

the processor side of that were unsuccessful, due to objections from 

some of your other colleagues that didn’t get straightened out until 

the last minute. But we appreciate your work on this, Senator. We 

72

need to look at both sides of the equation, both the harvesting side 

and the processing side. 

And finally, Senator, I know this is an issue that you’re familiar 

with, because you and Senator Smith have helped us in the past. 

This is the issue of the discriminatory tariff that the European 

Union imposes on pink shrimp. I know you’ve tried very hard to 

work with the existing U.S. trade representative. We now have a 

new one coming on board. And perhaps during his confirmation 

hearing he might be asked about this. We’d appreciate that. 

Thank you, Senator. I’ll save the rest. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST COAST SEAFOOD

PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Rod Moore. I am the executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. WCSPA represents 

seafood processors and associated businesses in Oregon, Washington, and California. 

Collectively, our members process the majority of the Pacific groundfish, Dungeness 

crab, pink shrimp, squid, and sardines landed in those states. I also currently serve 

as the chair of the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Advisory 

Subpanel and as Industry Vice-Chair of the Department of Commerce’s Marine 

Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). 

When looking at the groundfish ‘‘disaster’’ on the west coast, there is a natural 

tendency to compare it to events that occurred in the northeastern United States 

over the past several years. There are similarities: the social and economic effects 

are certainly the same and the remedies sound familiar. However, the underlying 

problems that caused the ‘‘disaster’’ are somewhat different. 

New England has been blessed with a strong scientific establishment, a wealth 

of historic data on fish populations and environmental conditions, and support—albeit recent—for cooperative research (there are advantages to being close to Washington, D.C.). On the west coast, however, we have been in the scientific Dark Ages, 

still using witchcraft to try to predict what is happening in a complex ecosystem. 

It is time for the Renaissance to begin. 

Of the 82 species of Pacific groundfish managed under the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s groundfish fishery management plan, we have stock assessments 

on fewer than 25 percent. Most of those assessments are conducted once every three 

years; for some species, there has been only one assessment and for most, none. Our 

fisheries surveys have been conducted every three years and most of those did not 

cover the entire coast. In fact, the area south of Point Conception in California has 

never been surveyed to the best of my recollection. While efforts have been made 

recently to conduct annual surveys, the results of those annual efforts are still not 

fully utilized, as there is a need to reconcile different survey methods, gear, and vessels used. 

The result is that we are making management decisions based on conditions that 

existed in the ocean five to ten years ago. 

Just to give an example, the allowable harvest levels for Dover sole in 2001 are 

based on a stock assessment done in 1998, which in turn used data from 1997 and 

before. Now, compound this with the occurrence of El Nino and La Nina events and 

what appears to be a shift in ocean environmental regimes, and the result is that 

we don’t really have the slightest idea of what we are doing. 

Of course, the management response to this tremendous uncertainty is to use a 

precautionary approach, to be conservative in response to a lack of good information. 

In practical terms, reduce harvest levels. 

And, to further confuse the problem, add in a decision by the Council to change 

its basic harvest policy in terms of how MSY is calculated and statutory changes 

which were both written and implemented in a way that defies logic and you have 

a true recipe for ‘‘disaster.’’

What’s even more amazing is that this ‘‘disaster’’ occurred in a fishery that has 

been subject to fairly strict management and in which harvest levels were set based 

on the recommendations of the scientists themselves. Here is where there is a major 

divergence from the situation in New England, which for many years had no upper 

bounds on its harvest levels, no catch reporting, and little enforcement and where—

some contend—scientific advice was ignored. On the west coast, we tried to do 

things right. 

73

So what are the practical effects of what’s gone on? Reduced harvests means lower 

income for vessels and the communities in which those vessels are based. It means 

vessels will attempt to find other fisheries in which to participate, risking a domino 

effect of overcapitalization. It means social and economic burdens that others can 

better describe than can I. 

Reduced harvests also affect seafood processors; my members, who are an integral 

part of the communities in which they operate. Workers are laid off; capital investments are kept idle. Utility usage—lights, water, and power—is reduced, exacerbating pricing structure problems for local utility companies and their residential 

consumers. Our Association took an informal survey of our members, asking them to compare 

certain economic yardsticks between 1997 and 2000. The complete results are not 

yet available, but the information we have so far is both interesting and chilling:

• a 7 percent reduction in the number of filleting stations available;

• a 44 percent reduction in the number of available filleting stations used;

• a 20 percent increase in the average cost to produce finished groundfish product;

• a 34 percent reduction in the number of skilled employees; and

• a 14 percent reduction in the number of unskilled employees.

And, while this is looking only at groundfish processing, you need to keep in mind 

that the same plants that process groundfish also process crab, shrimp, and other 

species. If those plants disappear, it will not only be the groundfish fleet that has 

no place to go, it will be the crab fleet and the shrimp fleet as well. Groundfish is 

the keystone that holds the west coast fishing community together. Take it away, 

and everything collapses. 

So what do we do to try and improve conditions? There are so many things that 

can and should be done, it’s hard to know where to begin. Some of the problems 

can be addressed by NMFS, some by the Congress, some by the States, and some 

by the industry. I will try to list them here:

1. Expend more effort on understanding ocean environmental processes.

NOAA has a long term research effort to examine ocean conditions and their effect on fish productivity, known as GLOBEC. On the east coast, GLOBEC is looking at groundfish; in Alaska, GLOBEC is looking at groundfish; and on the west 

coast? GLOBEC is looking at salmon. Now, there is certainly need to look at the 

effect of ocean productivity on salmon, but to tally ignore Pacific groundfish? This 

makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps we could actually save a few taxpayer dollars if we combined Pacific groundfish into the mix.

2. Get serious about collaborative research between the industry and NMFS.

Last summer, a professor from Oregon State University hosted an international 

meeting on collaborative research. At the meeting, I volunteered on behalf of the 

Oregon seafood industry to propose a process by which NMFS and the industry 

could evaluate collaborative research projects so that we could all be comfortable 

that projects being proposed were necessary, cost effective, and would not waste 

scarce research dollars. That proposal was submitted to NMFS on August 1, 2000. 

To date, we have received some favorable initial response from the Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center, but other than that—nothing. As far as we know, the 

proposal—and again, this was a proposal simply to establish a review process—

is languishing somewhere in the bowels of Silver Spring. Mr. Chairman, how can 

the industry expect to have any confidence in working with NMFS if we get treated like this? Many of us have volunteered time, money, and labor to see if we can 

get some more useful data. We get lots of praise for doing so, but little ever gets 

done. It’s time for NMFS to be serious about collaborative research; they can’t afford not to be.

3. Rectify the tremendous imbalance between spending on salmon recovery and 

spending on groundfish conservation and management.

I’ve already given you the horror stories on lack of data; some of you have heard 

it before. I don’t mean to impugn those interested in salmon, but a nearly 1000:1 

ratio of spending on salmon recovery versus spending on groundfish conservation 

and management is embarrassing. As one of my members put it, for the amount 

we’re spending on salmon recovery in the Columbia/Snake system, we could dig

a whole new river, free of dams, pollution, etc. It is only in the last few years 

that we have seen even meager increases in the groundfish research budget, 

74

thanks to the work of the Oregon delegation. The Congress and the new administration need to get their priorities straightened out.

4. Show us the money.

In FY 2000, $5 million was appropriated in emergency funding for groundfish disaster relief. We have yet to see a penny of it. If this were a flood or a hurricane 

or a tornado, Oregon, Washington, & California would be swarming with bureaucrats from FEMA, SBA, and who knows where else. Instead, we are met with 

deafening science while real people needs go unmet.

5. Improve data collection.

On the ‘‘good news’’ front, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center should be commended for pursuing efforts to develop electronic logbooks and reporting systems. 

The Center is also taking steps to improve its collection and analysis of economic 

and social data, an area in which this region is lacking. Unfortunately, those efforts will be for naught unless follow-through funding is made available.

On the ‘‘bad news’’ front, it is time to start fixing data collection problems. I am 

tired of getting calls from my member plants asking why there are seven data 

samplers hanging around to collect salmon data, but no one ever comes around 

to collect groundfish data. I’m tired of hearing from the Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife that ‘‘we’ve got federal money for salmon data collection but 

none for groundfish.’’ And I’m very tired of listening to discussions before the 

Groundfish Management Team and the Council every year on how the recreational catch data is unreliable and ‘‘we can’t do any in-season management’’

of the recreational fishery. Recreational fishermen are as concerned as commercial 

fishermen about sound conservation and management. NMFS, the States, the 

Council, and the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission need a concerted effort to 

get their act together.

6. Fix the law so it reflects reality

This suggestion is in two parts: biological and economic. From the biological perspective, the entire complex of overfishing/rebuilding provisions needs to be modified. You can’t simultaneously ‘‘recover’’ two or more species that compete for the 

same ecological niche. You can’t ‘‘recover’’ a stock to levels that are no longer supported by existing carrying capacity. You can’t precisely calculate MSY and establish it as a constant, fixed point, with no allowance for natural fluctuation. Yet 

that’s what the law and the implementing regulations expect us to do. Our Association, along with several other groups of commercial and recreational interests 

around the country, developed some proposed changes to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act which address these problems. They are included as an attachment to my testimony.

On the economic side, you will hear from representatives of the harvesting sector 

on the need for and suggestions on how to accomplish a vessel and permit 

buyback program. While that will help resolve some of the problems facing the 

harvesting sector, it does nothing to address the other half of the fisheries equation—the processing sector.

At some point, this committee needs to address the long term issue of an individual quota (IQ) system. An essential part of any IQ system will be a need to 

recognize the investments made by processors and to keep them economically viable. This can be done in a number of ways: the ‘‘two-pie’’ proposal advocated by 

the Bering Sea crab fleet; a means of establishing cooperatives such as was provided for the Alaskan pollock fleet under the American Fisheries Act; creating a 

closed class of processors such as we suggested in conjunction with the fixed gear 

sablefish fishery on the west coast. All of these ideas must be on the table. Simply 

providing for the economic welfare of the fishing fleet while leaving the processing 

sector in economic disarray is not going to solve the problem.

7. Get serious on free trade

One of the few alternatives available to groundfish trawl vessels is the pink 

shrimp fishery. The shrimp found off our coast—Pandalus jordani—compete in 

the marketplace with other cold water shrimp—Pandalus borealis—caught in 

Canada and Scandinavia. We used to have a competitive market in Europe for 

our shrimp. However, after certain Scandinavian countries joined the European 

Union, we found that their shrimp could enter Europe at a duty rate of 7 percent, 

while our shrimp enters at a duty rate of 20 percent. To make matters worse, 

eastern Canada has enjoyed several successive years of high shrimp harvests. 

75

While Canada was initially able to take advantage of a special exception for a certain amount of their shrimp to enter Europe at a reduced duty, that quota is now 

being filled by Iceland and Greenland, leaving Canadians no choice but to put 

their shrimp in the U.S. market. Thus, the discriminatory tariff practices of the 

European Union threaten not only one, but two markets available for west coast 

pink shrimp. Perhaps when the new U.S. Trade Representative comes before the 

Senate for confirmation, the urgency of resolving the European shrimp issue could 

be stressed.

I hope this testimony and these suggestions will be helpful to the Committee. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

Changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act Proposed by the Seafood Coalition 

Best Scientific Information Available 

Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by inserting a new paragraph (l) as follows:

‘‘(l) The term ‘best scientific information available’ means information that—

‘‘(A) is directly related to the specific issue under consideration; 

‘‘(B) is based on a sufficient statistical sample such that any conclusions drawn 

are reasonably supported and not mere speculation; 

‘‘(C) is consistent with information that has been peer-reviewed and published in 

applicable and appropriate scientific publications; 

‘‘(D) has been collected within a time frame that is reasonably related to the specific issue under consideration; 

‘‘(E) is consistent with information that is available from other reliable sources; 

‘‘(F) has been collected and presented in a manner that is not calculated to favor 

any particular point of view; and 

‘‘(G) may consider, but is not based exclusively on, anecdotal information collected 

from the harvesting and processing of fish.

‘‘Information that does not meet this definition shall not provide the basis for fishery management decisions and shall not be accorded deference during judicial review.’’

Peer Review 

Section 302(g) (16 U.S.C. 1852(g)) is amended by adding the following—

‘‘(6) Each Council shall establish one or more scientific review committees to conduct peer reviews of all stock assessments prepared for fisheries under the Council’s jurisdiction. Committees established under this paragraph shall, at a minimum, consist of at least one member from each of the committees established 

under paragraphs (1) and (3) of this subsection, one member who is not affiliated 

with the authors of the stock assessments under review, and such other members 

as the Council considers appropriate.’’

Section 302(h) (16 U.S.C. 1852(h)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (5); 

(2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and 

(3) by inserting the following—

‘‘(6) conduct a peer review of any stock assessment prepared for a fishery under 

its jurisdiction, utilizing the committee established under subsection (g)(6); and’’

Essential Fish Habitat 

Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended by inserting a new paragraph (—) as follows:

‘‘(l) The term ‘‘habitat areas of particular concern’ means an area that is a discrete vulnerable subunit of essential fish habitat that is required for a stock to 

sustain itself and which is designated through a specified set of national criteria 

which includes, at a minimum, a requirement that designation be based on information regarding habitat-specific density of that fish stock, and growth, reproduction, and survival rates of that stock within the designated area.’’

Section 303(a)(7) (16 U.S.C.(a)(7)) is amended to read as follows:

‘‘(7) describe and identify essential fish habitat and habitat areas of particular 

concern for the fishery based on the guidelines established by the Secretary under 

section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on habitat 

76

areas of particular concern caused by fishing which prevent a stock of fish from 

sustaining itself on a continuing basis, and identify other actions to encourage the 

conservation and enhancement of such habitat.’’

Section 305(b)(1) (16 U.S.C. (b)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and habitat areas of 

particular concern’’ following ‘‘essential fish habitat’’ each time it appears in subparagraphs (A) and (B). 

Overfishing/Rebuilding 

Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1802) is amended—

(1) by amending paragraph (29) to read as follows:

‘‘(29) The terms ‘overfishing’ and ‘overfished’ mean a rate or level of harvest that 

jeopardizes the ability of a stock of fish to produce maximum sustainable yield on 

a continuing basis.’’; and (2) by inserting the following:

‘‘(l) The term ‘carrying capacity’ means the maximum population level of a 

stock of fish that the current state of the environment will support while allowing for the removal of surplus production.’’ ‘‘(l) The term ‘maximum sustainable yield’ means the largest annual catch or 

yield in terms of weight of fish caught by both commercial and recreational fishermen that can be continuously taken from a stock under existing carrying capacity, and which is adjusted as carrying capacity changes.’’ ‘‘(l) The term ‘surplus production’ means the biomass of fish that can be removed from a stock of fish without harming the stock’s ability to sustain itself.’’

Section 304(e) (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) by striking ‘‘(1)’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘(1)(A)’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘fisheries’’ each time it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 

‘‘stocks of fish’’; 

(C) by amending the last sentence to read as follows—

‘‘A stock of fish shall be classified as approaching a condition of being overfished 

if, based on the best scientific information available and other appropriate factors, the Secretary estimates that the stock of fish will become overfished within 

two years.’’; and 

(D) by adding at the end the following—

‘‘(B) If the Secretary determines that insufficient information is available on 

which to conclude that a stock of fish is approaching a condition of being overfished, the Secretary shall immediately notify the appropriate Council and within six months of such notification implement a cooperative research program designed to provide the information needed to determine whether or not the stock 

of fish is approaching a condition of being overfished.’’;

(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows—

‘‘(2) If the Secretary determines at any time that a stock of fish is overfished, 

the Secretary shall immediately notify the appropriate Council and request that 

action be taken to end overfishing and to implement conservation and management measures to rebuild the stock of fish. In the case of a fishery which harvests more than one stock of fish, such conservation and management measures 

shall not require that fishing be reduced for those stocks of fish which are not 

overfished. The Secretary shall publish each notice under this paragraph in the 

Federal Register.’’;

(3) in paragraph (3)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Within one year’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘Within three 

years’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘to end overfishing’’ and inserting in lieu 

thereof ‘‘to address overfishing’’;

(4) in paragraph (4)—

(A) by striking ‘‘For a fishery that is overfished’’ and inserting in lieu thereof 

‘‘For a fishery involving a stock of fish that is overfished’’; and 

(B) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows—

‘‘(A) specify a time period for addressing overfishing and rebuilding the overfished stock or stocks in the fishery that is as short as possible, taking into account the status, biology, and carrying capacity of any overfished stocks, the 

77

best scientific information available, the needs of fishing communities, recommendations by international organizations in which the United States participates, and the interaction of the overfished stock or stocks within the marine 

ecosystem;’’;

(5) in paragraph (5)—

(A) by striking ‘‘within the one-year period’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘within 

the three year period’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘that a fishery is overfished’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘that 

one or more stocks of fish in a fishery are overfished’’; and 

(C) by striking ‘‘regulations to stop overfishing’’ and inserting in lieu thereof 

‘‘regulations to address overfishing’’;

(6) in the second sentence of paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘to stop overfishing of a 

fishery’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘to address overfishing of a stock or stocks of 

fish in a fishery’’;

(7) in paragraph (7)—

(A) in the first sentence by inserting ‘‘and the best scientific information available related to the fishery management plan, plan amendment, or regulations’’

before ‘‘at routine intervals’’; 

(B) in the second sentence by striking ‘‘ending overfishing’’ and inserting in lieu 

thereof ‘‘addressing overfishing, sufficient data collection,’’; 

(C) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (A); 

(D) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; 

and 

(E) by adding a new subparagraph as follows—

‘‘(C) design and implement a cooperative program to collect the best scientific 

information available for such fish stocks.’’. 

Fish as Food 

Section 2(a) (16 U.S.C. 1801(a)) is amended by adding the following:

‘‘(11) Fish are an important natural renewable resource of food and fisheries 

have played a traditional and essential role in providing high quality protein 

for human use. 

‘‘(12) Fish are an important source of essential nutrients, particularly Omega–

3 fatty acids, and there is agreement among medical scientists that some of the 

world’s most serious diseases can be attenuated by increased fish consumption.’’

Section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 1801(b)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (6); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(8) To promote fisheries conservation and management that will enhance our 

nation’s food supply, income, and economic growth.’’

Section 2(c) (16 U.S.C. 1801(c)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (6); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(8) that conservation and management measures shall contribute to the food 

supply, economy, and health of the Nation.’’

Observers 

Section 303(a) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (13); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (14) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding the following—

‘‘(15) to the extent that observers are deployed on board United States fishing 

vessels or in United States fish processing plants under the provisions of a fishery management plan or regulations implementing a fishery management plan, 

comply with the goals and objectives required under subsection (e).’’

Section 303 is further amended by adding the following—

‘‘(e) OBSERVER PROGRAMS.—

78

‘‘(1) Prior to establishing a program under this Act which utilizes observers deployed on United States fishing vessels or in United States fish processing 

plants, the Council with jurisdiction over the fishery (or in the case of a highly 

migratory species fishery, the Secretary) in which the observers will be deployed 

shall establish a set of goals and objectives and an implementation schedule for 

the program and a statistically reliable method for achieving the goals and objectives. 

‘‘(2) The goals and objectives required under paragraph (1) shall ensure equity 

among the various harvesting and processing sectors in the fishery; shall ensure 

that the costs of the program are appropriately shared by all beneficiaries, including participants in other fisheries; and shall ensure that those fishing vessels and processing plants where observers are deployed are not put at a disadvantage with respect to other harvesters or processors in that fishery or in 

other fisheries. 

‘‘(3) No observer program may be established until the provisions of paragraphs 

(1) and (2) are met.’’

Cumulative Impacts 

Section 301(a)(8) (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8)) is amended to read as follows—

‘‘(8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to 

fishing communities, and the cumulative economic and social impact of fishery 

conservation and management measures on such communities, in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent 

practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.’’

Optimum Yield Cap 

Section 3(28(B) (16 U.S.C. 1802(28)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘reduced’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘modified’’. 

Effect on Fishing 

Section 305(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2)) is amended—

(1) by striking the period at the end of the subparagraph and inserting ‘‘; or’’; 

(2) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ following ‘‘any action’’; and 

(3) by adding the following—

‘‘(B) authorized, funded, permitted, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, 

funded, permitted, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect the 

catching, taking, harvesting, or processing of fish in any fishery managed under 

this Act.’’

Senator WYDEN. Very helpful. What I’m going to do for this 

panel, because I want to give our open mike period an opportunity, 

is we’ll have some questions for you all in writing, Okay? There are 

a number of areas I wanted to ask you about. This is excellent testimony that I’d like to ask questions about. 

We’ll excuse you, unless you would like to add anything further. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you for coming, Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. I want to repeat essentially opportunities for 

folks to participate. The hearing record is going to be open for 10 

days. If anyone wants to submit written testimony, it should be 

sent to the Senate congressional Committee in Washington D.C. 

For e-mail purposes—I know many e-mail to me regularly—I want 

this to go to the Committee, margaretlspring@commerce.senate.gov. We’ll have that available for 

the folks as well for e-mail. 

And, let us say we’ve now got eight folks signed up for the open 

mike period. Let’s try to have folks take just a minute or two, again 

the chance to amplify as well, in terms of written comments. But, 

I do want to allow some time. 

We’ve got Donna Leach and Tom Leach signed up. Did you both 

want to testify? 

79

Mr. LEACH. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA LEACH, HOMEMAKER AND 

FISHERMAN’S WIFE 

Ms. LEACH. I’ve written you numerous times. I’ve contacted your 

office and talked to your members. I’ve also talked to Senator 

DeFazio. And I don’t know if he gave you a copy of this pertaining 

to the meeting I had requested——

Senator WYDEN. Right. 

Ms. LEACH. He’s still working on it. Emily Jenkins, I sent her 

copies of the petitions. I also gave your office copies of the petitions 

asking for NMFS’ Stock Assessment Scientists to be fired, due to 

their negligence. 

I do not feel that there is a lack of fish. There is a lack of science. 

You’ve also agreed with me on this matter. The people of America 

asked, when we were at a meeting, for a survey to be done at no 

cost to the government. And instead of getting a yes, I was told by 

Usha she had to talk to Rick Methot. At that meeting, Rick Methot 

told me he did not think it could be done. I contacted him later 

from our property in Eastern Oregon. He told us it could not be 

done. Then I come home to Coos Bay. Usha tells me that they 

made an effort, but none of the boats that volunteered were ever 

asked to do that survey. And the government hired a gentleman 

named Bob Shone who is supposed to be a liaison between the people and National Marine Fisheries and NOAA. 

The people of America right now ask that this Committee not 

give another dime to National Marine Fisheries, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, NMFS, any of them, until NMFS’ scientists come and go out on the commercial fishery boats on a 

month-to-month basis for practical, realistic data—no more playing 

games, no more wasting tax dollars. They have wasted our time for 

over twenty-some years. They have wasted the government’s time. 

And it’s time it ends. You have sat here and listened to them. How 

many years does it take them to accomplish something? Would you 

wait to balance your checkbook for over a year? I don’t think so. 

My husband had a heart attack. Would I go to a plumber, or 

would I go to the very best? These people are supposed to be qualified to do this job. You hired people that are not qualified and 

should be fired? And I, as a servant—and I do have petitions right 

here with me from the people of America—fire these people and get 

people that will do the job. Do not give them another dime. 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Leach, do you want to followup? 

Mr. LEACH. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN. Did you want to speak, sir? 

STATEMENT OF TOM LEACH, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN 

Mr. LEACH. Yes. Senator, I want to thank you for coming, thank 

you for inviting us. And when I saw you about a week ago, I believe it was at Coos Bay, and you said how do we take care of my 

problem. You’re doing it. I thank you. 

And I got some stuff I kind of want to rebuttal here. Of course 

our metric tons, our landings, are falling from what the National 

Marine Fisheries said, because over the last 10 years they’ve cut 

our harvest guidelines. They’ve cut our optimum yield. How could 

80

it stay where it was? And ever since they started cutting and cutting our discards have increased. That’s a total shame. 

On the observers, Steve touched on it, but I want to retouch on 

it again. I heard $5 million. I’d like to have that contract. I don’t 

know if that was for 1 year or whatever. But for about $4,000 we 

can get these videos put on the boats, like he testified to. If you 

take that times two hundred boats, that’s $800,000. I don’t know 

what it would cost—it couldn’t cost a million dollars to have somebody sit at a desk and watch the hour—you know, the hour meter 

thing like they talked about. Because I suppose the average tow is 

six, 7 hours long. And you’ve got an hour’s time on the deck. And 

if you took that times 200 boats, which there’s about 200 boats 

fishing, it shouldn’t take that long. 

We want to do the research. We’ve been doing it the last 3 

years—well, 2 years, excuse me—well, actually the last 3 years. 

The scientists that’s on our boats, government scientists, say the 

data is better. They’re getting more accurate data. Why that would 

be I don’t know. But the scientists themselves want to go on our 

boat. They don’t want to go on the Miller-Freeman. And we can 

have four boats per day for the price that that Miller-Freeman 

costs us each day. We can have four boats to do that same survey 

the Miller-Freeman does. So don’t give them any more money for 

that Miller-Freeman. 

It was brought up here that—that they let us talk to them at the 

meetings and all this. That’s a bunch of baloney, because I have 

been going for 5 years. They don’t let us talk. They don’t even listen to us at the meetings when we’re there. I have been called a 

liar, and I have been told that I needed a PAC before they would 

even think of listening to me. And I have 40 years experience, and 

I know damn well I know more what’s out there than they do. I 

want to read a little part that I’m going to give you for total testimony here. 

Senator WYDEN. The only thing I’d say, Mr. Leach, is we’ve got 

another six people we have to get in. So, if I could maybe read that, 

I think you’ve said that real well. 

Mr. LEACH. You don’t want to hear about the discard thing? 

Senator WYDEN. Why don’t you touch on it real briefly. 

Mr. LEACH. Well, Okay. I’ll skip over this here. 

If there’s such a shortage, why did I catch 2 months complex—

2 months—in 61 hours towing time, 61 hours towing time for 2 

months complex. And they have a shortage of fish. And out of that 

I threw away 1,000 pounds of shore spine, which the government 

says there is none out there. And it’s the same thing with the black 

cod. We only bring in the mediums and large. We don’t keep any 

smalls or extra smalls. And it goes right on down the list. 

The last thing is that I hope that the buyback program does go 

through. But I think it’s going to be way more costly than what 

anybody images. Because if you’re going to get rid of the top producers, it’s going to cost you millions, not a million but millions. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. And, it was good to talk with you 

all in Coos Bay last week as well. 

[Material provided by Donna and Tom Leach follows:]

81

MATERIAL OF TOM LEACH, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN AND DONNA LEACH, HOMEMAKER

October 3, 2000

DONNA LEACH, Coos Bay, OR.

Dear Donna:

Thank you for forwarding me the petitions regarding fisheries management. I was 

disappointed to hear from my staff that you did not want to meet with senior National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) officials to discuss the decline of the 

groundfish fishery. As I indicated at the Coos Bay town hall meeting, NMFS needs 

to better understand how inadequate stock assessments affect fishers and their families along the West Coast and you have the data and personal experience to make 

a good case. 

In addition to trying to facilitate a meeting between you and senior NMFS officials, I have also contacted House Committee on Resource Chairman Don Young to 

request a hearing on the management of the groundfish fishery. Unfortunately, in 

the rush towards adjournment, it is unlikely that a hearing can be scheduled in the 

next three weeks. 

In the absence of a hearing, if you continue to want to bring your concerns before 

Congress and Senior Commerce Department officials, I will attempt to arrange 

meetings with appropriate Members of Congress and Administration officials. However, I hope you will reconsider meeting with senior NMFS officials in the Northwest. 

Sincerely, 

PETER DEFAZIO, 

Member of Congress. 

Press Release 

To: The World Newspaper 

Attention: Kathy Erickson, Editor 

Date: Dec. 12, 2000

RE: FAKE DATA FORCES CLOSURE TO WEST COAST FISHERY

From: Tom/Donna Leach

Tom Leach, a 40 year veteran of fishing, claims that ‘‘the U.S. government is forcing us to shut down our West Coast fishery,’’ he announced at a recent community 

meeting. ‘‘Plain and simple, the government encouraged us to build bigger boats, to 

overspend, and overcapitalize 20 years ago. Now they are cutting us back by another 25 percent.’’ Leach, who owns the Jamie-K, and fishes out of Coos Bay, Oregon says’’ Dr. Rick 

Methot made the model and he’s putting incorrect data into it. He’s employed by 

a government agency, the National Marine Fishery Service, and he has free rein 

over everything we do. 

The Magnuson-Stevenson Act calls for Economic Impact Studies to be done before 

quota’s are cut. However, no such studies have been done, prior to past quota cuts. 

Why? If the National Marine Fishery Service were a private business, it would be 

liable for law suits for not following the law. Why are they exempt? ‘‘Six Years ago, in Sept. of 1994, our fishery hired Nancy Douglas, a consultant, 

to advise us on what we should do to protect our ocean resources. We were concerned about the proper data being used to evaluate the status of our current fish 

stock off the coast of Oregon, Washington, and California. Douglas advised us to request a Task Force to review the way that Stock assessments are done. She sent 

letters to President Clinton, Vice President Gore and others. With the help of Congressman Pete DeFazio, Senator Mark Hatfield and Representative Elizabeth Furse, 

we obtained the Task Force Review; and we won it.’’ Six Scientists from around the World went over everything with Dr. Methot, and 

the National Marine Fishery Service. They told Methot to throw his Model away, 

because it doesn’t work. They suggested using the fishermans Log Books, and talk

to the fishermen. 6 months later, in Feb. of 1995, Dr. Methot announced ‘‘We don’t 

have anything else to use, and that’s what we’re going to use anyway’’, and that 

is what we are doing.’’ said Leach. 

I asked Dr. Methot about where he gets his net mortality. He replied ‘‘oh, it’s just 

a known Fact’’. We’ve done studies ourselves with Black Cod, and we can have them 

up on deck for 15 minutes, then place them in water and go back 2 days later and 

they are still alive. 

82

For: Tom Leach 

By: Nancy Douglas 

Date: 12/12/00

I want to thank Mayor Verger and the representatives that are here. 

My name is Tom Leach, and I have a problem. What I want to know is, I guess, 

is ‘‘How can you help us? That’s what I want to know. I don’t know who to turn 

to.’

Are there any loggers here? It’s just like when you were run out of the woods because of the spotted owl. We are under the same thing. We are getting shut out 

on bad data. Plain and simple. 

Loggers, Remember how you had to clean the streams years ago? Now they’re getting paid for putting logs back in. Now they are forcing us to go to an 8 inch 

footrope, and we’d like to go back to a 14 inch footrope, before we tear up the bottom 

of the ocean. 

The same thing with the salmon. Another government mistake. The government 

used to see to it that ODFW used to put in 50 million fish a year in the hatcheries. 

Private aqua-culture came along and said to the senators and ODFW, ‘‘Look at how 

much money we can save you.’’ ‘‘We’ll put in the 50 million fish a year’’ and they 

did. But they tampered with the genetics of the fish, consequently they were coming 

back in two years instead of three. They were also undersized, and too small for 

our commercial fishing industry. We’ve never had a natural wild stock of silvers, 

it’s been hatchery fish, and it always has been. 

The Magnuson-Stevenson Act calls for economic impact studies before quota’s are 

cut, however no such studies have been conducted prior to past quota cuts. Why? 

If the National Marine Fishery Service were a private business, it would be liable 

for law suits for not following the law. Why are they exempt? 

I am concerned about the proper management of our fisheries. I feel that the industry needs to be involved at all levels of management to insure that the stock assessment process is accurate and sound. We fishermen need to be involved at all 

levels of future planning. I feel that a year-round fishery s needed for us, the fish 

companies, and the people. 

Now we’ll get back to the background on the data. The Miller Freeman is a 215 

foot vessel that is used by the government to conduct research. They went out and 

made tows, and they didn’t catch anything, because their tows were all mudded 

down. This went on for several years, so they said ‘‘there is no fish’’, because they 

couldn’t catch anything. So they put a fisherman on board the boat. Gerald Gunnari 

went, and he wasn’t out there for very long, and he showed them all the mistakes 

they were making! He told them all the stuff that he felt needed changing, and they 

actually went out and caught fish! 

They said ‘‘That’s great’’. The next year Jimmy Burns went out, but I think he 

worked more on the speed they needed to do, before they could catch fish, and they 

caught fish! They said ‘‘well, I guess the fish were always there, but we’ll just pretend that they were always there now.’’ So, now the data went from no fish to there 

were always fish there. 

We mark our wires, so we know where the gear is. I found more stuff that is 

wrong but we wont get into that, but anyhow all their data has been bad before 

we got two fishermen To go out on their boat. 

Six years ago, Nancy Douglas was hired, as a consultant, to help us save our fishery. It was her suggestion to write letters to President Clinton and others, asking 

for a task force to review the way that stocks were being done. We were very concerned about the data that was being used to determine the status of our current 

fish stock, off the coast of Oregon, Washington and California. With the assistance 

of Pete DeFazio, Senator Mark Hatfield, and Representative Elizabeth Furse, we got 

the review we asked for. 

We got 5 scientists from around the world, none of ours, and we went over all 

the stuff with Rick Methot. When they got it all done, they told Rick to ‘‘throw your 

models away, because it doesn’t work, and it doesn’t fit. Use the fishermen’s log 

books, use the fishermans data and talk to them.’’

Six months later Rick Methot said ‘‘Well, we don’t have anything else to use, and 

so that’s what we’re going to use anyway’’. That’s what there doing. 

Prior to 1992 Dover Thorny Heads Sable Fish (DTS) were wide open. In 1993 we 

were cut to 90,000 pounds. In 1994 we were cut to 60,000 pounds, a 33 percent cut. 

In 1995 we were cut to 50,000 pounds, a 15 percent cut from the previous year. In 

1996 we were cut to 30,000 pounds, a 40 percent cut from the previous year. In 1997 

there were no cuts. In 1998 we were cut by 18,500 pounds, 40 percent cut from the 

previous year. The total was 128 percent cut in the last 5 years. 

83

The most meaningful true conservation measures in effect today were imposed by 

the commercial fishers as: increasing mesh size in our trawl gear, insuring the 

escapement of juveniles and small adult fish insuring a sustainable fishery for our 

future; increased our footrope size allowing more escapement of small fish under our 

trawl gear, being more selective in the larger fish on the bottom, reducing our discards. These measures make our operations less efficient but more conservation-oriented for the future. We are the ones with vested interest in having fish for the future. Managers/regulators have no vested interest whether there are fish or not. 

Interpretation seeming to be torqued to lower harvest levels below profit levels 

for the west coast harvesters. 

Inflexibility resulting in zero fishing mortality is not in the West Coast’s best interest. 10 Year rebuilding schedule is unrealistic for some species. 

How they arrived at these numbers was through going through their interpretation of the Magnuson Act. This meant that we had to regulate this on the conservative side. So they would take a figure, like 3,000 metric tons, that would be high 

and 2,000 tons would be low, and you’d think that it would be fine. 

Then the first committee, a statistical one, said ‘‘well, let’s take that 2,500 figure 

and we’ll cut it by 10 percent, so we’ll be safe. Then they would pass it up to the 

next committee, and the next committee would say the same thing. FOUR committees later it would go through, to bite the dust. They cut between 3,000 and 2,000 

and each one of those 4 would take another bob off from that, for being conservative. 

I think that they have over-conservatized it all the way back to the precautionary 

side. 

Well, a little more on the data background. I’ve offered me boat to them and they 

refused. I’ve asked them to go with me, and they’ve refused. John Broac, said he 

was going with me, (he’s the Dover author/scientist), but he never showed up. I’ve offered to tag black cod for them, at no cost, and they never brought the tags. 

I’ve fished in this one place for 25 years, now there’s four boats fishing in the 

same place, and there’s just as many fish there now as there was then. 

Now I will get into some actual facts about data. I went out this time for our two 

month complex, 61 hours towing time. I had most of my two month complex. And 

I threw away over 1,000 pounds of sort spine thornyheads in the 61 hours. I’m only 

allowed to sell 1,000 pounds of them, and I did. 

I don’t rockfish, I never have. I could catch a lot of rockfish now too, I think 

they’re allowing us to catch 4,000 pounds too. 

The last few years we haven’t been bringing any black cod in that are small. We 

bring in a dollar a pound fish on the big ones, and 80 cents for the medium ones. 

That’s not the right figure, but we throw away the 40 cent ones. So what did the 

scientists say? ‘‘Gee, there are no recruits, no small ones!’’ I have gone to the meetings for 4 and a half years, and I tell them, and tell them, 

But what do they say? ‘‘You don’t have a PHD, and we won’t talk with you.’’ It just 

seems that to me common sense would tell them, (and who ever is out there to listen to us), that if there was a shortage of fish out there, we would have to spend 

more that just 61 hours to catch our DTS, our two month complex. 

On the short spine, that’s the one we’re regulated on. Everything is supposedly 

a factor on the DTS. We don’t know how far out there that they go, their out there 

for 28 miles to 30 miles, and they are still there. They may go from here to China. 

Nobody knows, or from here to Japan. We’ve never found and end to them. Why 

they’ve got us regulated on that, I just don’t know. 

Rumor is, according to the last 2 years, that scientists have been going out on 

our vessels and they said there were an awesome level of trends and increases already. They have seen it, but I’m not going to say that for a fact. I don’t know. I 

wasn’t there, but at least it’s not going DOWN. 

The way that they do their study for their data is they don’t pick a spot, and they 

keep going to that one spot. What they do is they pick a different spot each year, 

and they say that this is where you are going to tow. We tell them that ‘‘Fish don’t 

even live there.’’ It’s like going into the middle of Los Angeles and looking for a herd 

of Elk. Well, that’s the way they do their research, no wonder it hasn’t been going 

very well. 

Now, next years cut. We’re going to get cut by another 25 percent, that’s their 

proposal right now. 50 percent On short spine hardheads. It’s unbelievable. 61 

Hours towing time for the two month complex, and they are going to cut us some 

more. 

I guess the conclusion is that the government wants to replace us. The government encouraged us to build bigger boats, to over-spend and to over-capitalize. Let’s 

get rid of the foreign fleet and you guys can catch them all. They encouraged that 

20 years ago. We got rid of the foreign fleet alright, and now we’re getting rid of 

ourselves. 

84

My thoughts are we need your help. We need you to tell the government that you 

created this problem, and now we need the buy-back program for industry. If that’s 

your goal, and we need to get rid of 50 percent of the boats. 

I want to know, who do we need to see, and who do we need to talk to? How do 

we get this thing stopped? 

I have told Rick Methot that his model is truly probably one of the best models 

in the world. His first equation is Q. It stands for quantity, and he doesn’t have 

a clue. (Where do we find fish?) 

The other one is Net Mortality. I asked him ‘‘where do you get your net mortality, 

Rick?’’

‘‘Oh, it’s just a known fact’’ he said. Maybe it is, I don’t know. I don’t have any 

idea of how they came up with it. We’ve done studies on it ourselves. Black Cod, 

you can have them up on deck 15 minutes, and put them in a pot, and put them 

back in the water and go back two days later, and they are still alive. What is the 

net mortality? There are so many holes in his model it’s just pathetic. 

I want you to ask congress to not fund Rick Methot’s request for seven Research 

Vessels. The Miller Freeman couldn’t catch a fish, and they bragged about that. 

They had the finest gear in the world. I told them that ‘‘without a doubt, they did, 

but they just don’t know how to catch fish with it.’’

Don’t give Methot any money for his research vessels. Let US DO the research. 

I wish they’d get rid of that 8 inch footrope . . . that is a real killer, we’re killing 

babies, Juveniles, their killing everything out there. My partners tell me ‘‘don’t say 

that Leach’’. We want to go back to the 14 inch footrope. 

That’s all I have. If you have any questions, I’ll be more than happy to answer 

them for you. Thank you. 

Fact Sheet

Quota Cut History

Net Changes

Prior to 1992 Dover Thorny Heads Sable fish (DTS) wide open

1993 cut to 90,000 pounds 

1994 cut to 60,000 pounds = 33% cut 

1995 cut to 50,000 pounds = 15% cut from previous year 

1996 cut to 30,000 pounds = 40% cut from previous year 

1997 no cut 

1998 cut 18,500 pounds = 40% cut from previous year

Total 128% cut in last five years 

The most meaningful true conservation measures in effect today were imposed by 

the commercial fishers such as; increasing mesh size in our trawl gear insuring the 

escapement of juveniles and small adult fish, insuring a sustainable fisheries for our 

future; increased our footrope size allowing more escapement of small fish under our 

trawl gear, being more selective in the larger fish on the bottom, reducing discards. 

These measures make our operations less efficient but more conservation oriented 

for the future. We are the ones with vested interest in having fish for the future. 

Managers/regulators have no vested interest whether there are fish or not. 

Interpretation seeming to be torqued to lower harvest levels below profit levels 

for the West Coast harvesters. 

Inflexibility resulting in zero fishing mortality is not in the West Coast’s best interest. 

10 year rebuilding schedule is unrealistic for some species. 

Staffers wrote up the changes, don’t believe history, would not support inversion. 

(Change Magnuson-Stevens Act) it’s torqued interpretations identify? 

Was written to prove overfishing in order to ‘‘rid our fishing grounds of foreign 

vessels over 100 to 300 feet long. They are no longer fishing 24 hours a day out 

here. Somewhere this system has got to turn the corner and start supporting our 

own domestic fishers get some reality in fish management. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for a study of economic impact before quotas are 

cut, however no such studies have been conducted prior to past quota cuts. Why? 

If the NMFS was a private business it would be liable for law suits for not following 

the law. Why are they exempt? 

85

COOS BAY TRAWLERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

Coos Bay, OR., July 1, 1997

Dear Councilors and Guest:

I am concerned about the proper management of our fisheries. I feel that the industry needs to be involved at all levels of management to insure that the stock assessment gathering processes are accurate and sound. We fishermen need to be involved in future planning. 

I feel that a year-round fishery is needed for us, fish companies and the people. 

Right now we are looking at 2 and possibly 3 month closures. The down fall of 

the closure would be the loss of jobs and the revenues from the fresh fish market. 

Since 1987, we have taken drastic cuts in harvest levels and a limited entry of 

permits has come into effect. Some of our boats have sold our drag permits and have 

left our fishery. 

We have voluntarily reduced our efforts and increased our efficiency to increase 

our conservation tactics. We have increased our net size to 41⁄2 inch, employed roller 

gear instead of 8 inch disc, no double double cod ends, no chaffing gear which allows 

small fish to escape. 

Currently we are on a F35 which means 35 percent of the females are never 

caught and the ODFW are pushing to F40. 

Two years ago, we had five independent scientist from around the world do a external review of our survey methodology and they found that it was worst than we 

imagined. They recommended that the model be thrown away, use fishermen input, 

logbooks and get sound stock data. 

The survey vessel, Miller Freemen, which has conducted the surveys for many 

years prior to 1993, never caught much. We got a fishermen on the vessel and in 

two trips he got their gear to fishing. Now they are catching fish. It hasn’t changed 

any of the data yet. 

Some say that there is a shortage of fish. If there is such a shortage, why are 

the larger vessels fishing only 6 to 8 days per month and the smaller vessel are 

fishing 8 to 10 days a month to get their quotas. 

There are some regulators that believe their education level out weighs the fishermen actual experience. 

In closing, each dollar we earn generates 8 fold back to the community. You can 

help us by advising your political contacts in fishing matters to help establish a better understanding of our industry. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

To: All Groundfish Management Team members.

In 1997, industry lost 3,061 metric tons of DTS; 6,749.505 pounds at a value of 

$1,422,903.45 due to small trip limits set by management! 

In 1997, at the September PFMC meeting. I showed the Council how we were 

going to be short on the harvest guideline and gave them a plan to compensate for 

the shortfall. The Council took no action! 

In 1998, industry lost 4,295 metric tons; 9,470,475 pounds at a value of 

$4,400,512.00. In June at the PFMC meeting, I told them ee would be short again 

on the HG. They thanked me but took no action until it was too late in the year 

and we lost again. 

I hope the GMT and the PFMC does its job a lot better this year. Are you going 

to listen to industry this year (1999) and do better? Or are you going to continue 

to take money out of our pockets anyway you can? 

The last two years, I have lost approximately $29,116.00 on the DTS alone. In 

1997, we left 3,137 MT, minus 76 MT of over fished shortspines hardheads, equals 

3,061 MT = 6,749,505 pounds DTS; we left 2,110,185 pounds on Dover @ .31 per 

= $654,157.35; we left 4,381,335 pounds on Longspines @ .60 per = $2,628.801.00; 

we over fished shortspines by 167,580 pounds @ $ 1.00 per = $167,580.00; we left 

421,155 pounds of Sable @ $1.20 = $505,866.00. 

In 1998 we left 1,637 MT of Rockfish, we fished 409 MT of unspecified rockfish 

which equals 1,228 MT = 2,707,740 pounds @ .32 per = $866.476.80

We left 3,067 MT of the DTS HG 

Dover 980 MT = 2,160,900 pounds @ .31 per =$669,879.00

Longspines 1,859 MT = 4,079,250 pounds @ .60 per = $2,247,550

Shortspines 4 MT = 8,820 pounds @ $1.00 per $8,820.00

Sable 233MT= 513,765 pounds @ $1.20=$6l6,518.00

3,067 MT = 6,762,735 pounds = $3,534.035.20

86

Coos Bay, OR, December 6, 1996

TO: National Marine Fishery Service

Dear Gentlemen:

I am the owner and operator of the FV Jamie K, a 60 foot vessel. I have been 

a commercial fisherman on the West Coast for 39 years, since 1957. 

I am concerned about the proper management of our fishery. I feel that industry 

needs to be involved at all levels, to insure that the stock assessment gathering 

process’s are accurate and sound. We fishermen need to be involved in future planning as well. 

I feel that a year-around fishery is needed, for us, the fish companies, and the 

people of the USA—so they can continue eating fresh seafood. 

I have some thoughts and observations that I would like to share with you about 

our West Coast Trawl fishery. Please give careful consideration to the following:

1. Net Size:

My net size is called a 350, and it’s 74.5 feet. The head rope is 56.6 feet.

The average vessel in this port is 74 feet in length, and they tow a 401. Their 

footropes average 85 feet, with head ropes of 64 feet.

Our foot ropes are loose and roll over the grounds. We do not use rock-hopper 

footropes on the average.

We used to use 5 to 7 inch disc footropes arid smaller cod ends. Now we use 

14 inch roller gear and a 41⁄2 inch (mesh size) cod ends. We lose a lot of fish 

at the stern of the boat (I wonder if this isn’t a mistake on the net mortality 

rate v.s. fish size)?

I feel that net mortality is important. I think we should go back to the smaller cod ends, because I keep losing legal size fish—the mesh size is too big! 

I feel this would insure the accuracy of the net mortality.

Fact: The weighbacks are 2 to 3 percent on Dover. It used to be 8 to 10 percent.

With these problems, how can you judge accurately the net mortality?

2. The Miller Freeman:

I would like to volunteer to go on the next survey please. I feel that my experience could be valuable to the industry, and the surveys. Please consider me 

as a candidate for the trip, and let me know ASAP if I am accepted, so I can 

plan my future schedule accordingly. 

At 10 a.m. on Nov. 14, 1996, I passed the Miller Freeman vessel towing at 

about 175 to 180 fathoms. called them and asked what they were catching. 

He said ‘‘mud and dog sharks . . . Lots of mud and lots of dog sharks’’. I told 

him that this is all they would catch inside of 200 fathoms. (Obviously the 

crew does not have the knowledge to know where the fish are).

The following day, Nov. 15, 1996, I observed the Miller Freeman in 450 fathoms. At least they did move to another area! I presume they were going after 

Black Cod.

It is interesting to me that 3 weeks earlier, the fishing conditions would have 

been ideal. All of us fishermen know that every year at this time the ‘dogs’

move through this area, in great schools.

I think that the surveys should be conducted from June to September, so 

catching dog sharks won’t happen. Most fisherman know that the months of 

April/May and October/November the fish are in transition (they are moving).

Tow by tow the ocean changes.

3. Yellow Tail Rockfish:

If there is such a shortage of Yellow Tail Rock Fish in the Astoria fishery, 

why do some of our Rock Fish boats run to Astoria to catch their Rockfish 

quota in only one day? There is so much Yellow Tail Rockfish in the Astoria 

fishery, you can’t keep out of them.

4. Halibut Bycatch:

In the future we need to keep the dead halibut bycatch so it can be donated 

to the food bank. This is now a standard practice in Alaska.

87

5. Halibut:

We are catching more Halibut now than ever. As an example, we used to 

catch one or 2 a trip, and now we get them almost every tow.

6. Discards:

ODF & W records show that I had a total of 5,719 total discards of Black Cod. 

I had a total of 154 pounds of Long Spine and Thorny Heads, and 8.4 pounds 

of Dover.

Out of the 5,719 pounds of Black Cod, my logbook shows that 2,605 pounds 

were alive and thrown overboard. 2,015 Pounds had to be discarded, due to 

the quota. 605 Pounds I had to throw overboard because of price negotiation 

problems.

My net discards of 494 pounds was all that I feel were actually discarded. 

This is not bad for five and a half months of fishing!

7. Observers:

I think we need to keep the observer program. I had an observer on board 

for five and a half months. I think it’s the only way to go.

I do not like keeping an ‘enhanced logbook’ because we fishermen have been 

called liars for years. If you don’t have trust in us, why should we keep them?

8. Logbooks:

Please look at the enclosed logbook papers. I have kept records since 1963 of 

every fish I have ever caught.

Pay special attention, please, to areas that I have highlighted in yellow marker (on the following dates): 5/3/96, 5/13/96, 5/17/96, 11/14/96, and 11/16/96. 

Rick Methot, I am sorry about the remarks I wrote on 5/13/96, but I was very 

angry that I had to leave 2 to 3,000 dollars worth of fish behind, per tow, 

due to shortages.

If there is such a shortage in the fisheries, why do I catch my DTS in 8 to 

10 days fishing per month? The larger boats out of this port catch their DTS 

in a shorter amount of time. (Their nets are bigger).

I feel that this conference is a positive move, and the fact that minutes are going 

to be kept of it is important. Are you also going to tape all segments? It might be 

a good idea to have the minutes available, in their entirety, so that they can be sent 

to the fishermen upon request. Also, certain portions of the tapes would probably 

be very helpful for people who have not been able to attend. When you send out 

the minutes, it might also be a good time to include a questionnaire, so that you 

can gather some more feedback from the people who did not attend, and also the 

ones that did. 

I feel we need to get information out to fishermen in a timely manner so that they 

understand what is being discussed about the future of our fishery. This conference 

if vital and important, and I am glad to be in attendance. 

Please send me minutes of the meetings. 

By the way, why are we meeting in Portland, instead of Coos Bay, Newport or 

Brookings? Where do the fishermen live and fish out of? Portland? I don’t think so. 

Sincerely, 

TOM LEACH, 

FV JAMIE K. 

Coos Bay, OR. 

Mr. TOM LEACH, 

F/V Jamie K, 

679 Kellogg Blvd.

Dear Senator Smith:

Thank you for coming to address our concerns of the Oregon Fisheries. Our biggest problem is the ‘‘poorest at best’’ stock biomass data of our fisheries. 

The Hard Head lady, Jean Rogers, doesn’t have enough data to give a good picture of the biomass. She said time and time again during the Stat and Star panel 

meetings that she assumes and guesses at this and that. Quotas cut, Long spine 

30 percent and Short spine 60 percent Yet they cut our harvest guidelines for the 

year. 

88

The Black Cod man, Paul Crone, says he doesn’t have enough data for good biomass stock assessment. (Quota cut 40 percent) 

The Dover Sole man, Jon Brojack, says at our present rate, our spawning biomass 

is increasing by 1 percent per year and an increase of 9 percent in the past few 

years. (Quota cut of 19 percent) 

At the Star panel meeting, Allen McCall (chairman) said they never had enough 

data to make a judgment on any D.T.S. 

They cut the Widow rockfish by 34 percent; yet the boats only fish about 20 hours 

per month to catch the old quota of 30,000 pounds. The same goes for my fishing 

on the D.T.S. I used to fish 8 to 10 days per month. The bigger boats only fish 5 

to 8 days per month. Now it will be less. 

The fastest way to turn this around would be to increase the Hake quotas by at 

least 50 percent or more. The bigger boats would be off the Groundfish at least two 

more months with almost four months total. That would save a lot. A big help would 

be to give the shore base plants 50 percent of the quota. The fish plants would build 

new facilities and hire more people. 

The Hake are the world’s best shrimp eaters and our shrimp industry would come 

back good again. That could be six months more of the boats off the Groundfish. 

The shrimpers had problems last year trying to keep out of all ages of Hake. We 

have changed our net mesh to a larger size and made the foot rope larger. We are 

not as efficient as we use to be on flat fish. 

After 40 years of experience in the fishing industry, I truly wish we would be listened to and have as much impact as the Ph. D’s do. 

I have had an observer on board for six months, have kept an expanded logbook 

since the start and have kept logs since before 1963. Also, I have had a ODF&W 

biologist on board for a trip last year and he said, ‘‘Boy, there is more fish out here 

than we thought and less discards then we thought.’’

The government is causing us to discard more fish now. My son on his boat and 

I on my boat have fished the same area now since the 70’s and the fishing is better 

now than back when we started. 

I would like to point out the fact that the biologists don’t see any small Black Cod 

landed so they think there are no black cod left. We don’t keep 0 to 3 pound black 

cod, we have to discard fish so we only keep the larger size of the fish. In fact, we 

don’t even fish where we could fill the boat with Black Cod. Last year I threw away 

4000 to 5000 pound tows of 1 to 2 pound Black Cod. 

Short spines have the same problem. Yet, Jean Rogers and Paul Crones say there 

are none, so we get cut on the quota. I am sorry but this action is not right. 

I think we are gaining on the data side of the issue. We have expanded logbooks, 

some on-board observers, got the R/V Miller Freeman catching fish now, have participated in some surveys and hope to do more in the future and now we are getting 

three boats from each port to meet with biologists and scientists every three months 

to give them better data and to just talk about conditions and other things. 

What we need from you is to try to stop further cuts to quotas for at least five 

years so we can get data into the model. I know there are more fish out there then 

the regulators believe there is. I am not guessing or assuming, I know because I 

work out on the ocean and I know what I see. 

Please consider the Hake idea very seriously. 

Thank you, 

TOM LEACH, 

FV JAMIE K. 

F/V Jamie K 

Coos Bay, OR, May 5, 1998

Mr. TOM LEACH, 

679 Kellogg Blvd.

To whomever is concerned:

Enclosed is a copy of my first trip of the Dover, Thorny head and Sablefish for 

the month of May. The enclosures are the regular and the enhanced logbooks. I 

have had an observer on board for six months and have kept an expanded log for 

21⁄2 years. 

What I am showing you is when the fishermen tell you that there are more fish 

out there than your Ph. D’s. Doctors and Scientists say, the fishermen are more reliable. We can show you by our log’s a very different picture than the one that the 

‘‘experts’’ paint. 

89

I am going to explain tow by tow my discards on the Sablefish (BC) and Thorny 

heads (HH). 

Tow #1

We towed for 10 hours and 10 minutes in the depths of 310 fathoms average for 

1035 pounds BC and 880 pounds of HH. We didn’t keep any BC under 3 pounds. 

We discarded 260 pounds of BC. We didn’t keep any HH under 9 inches. We discarded 80 pounds of HH. 

Tow #2

Eleven hours 10 minutes tow, average depth of 295 fathoms. Caught 2120 pounds 

of BC. Didn’t keep any fish under 5 pounds on this tow and for the rest of the trip. 

The reason we did this is because we would have been throwing BC over the side 

so we made more money on the larger fish. We caught 1470 pounds of HH which 

most were short spine hard heads (SSHH). We discarded 120 pounds under 9 inches 

for market conditions. On this one tow we had 2/3 of the month’s quota on BC and 

almost of the SSHH. 

So where is the shortage of the BC and SSHH? 

As you can see by the expanded log on tow 3 we discarded 109 BC weighting 381 

pounds at an average depth of 330 fathoms. We moved in and out for depth trying 

not to catch big tows of BC and SSHH. If you follow the tows in the regular log 

and the expanded log you can see the area, the time, the depth average, the catch, 

discards and weather conditions. We discarded 8531 pounds of BC for the trip and 

645 pounds of HH. 

I have kept logs from 1963 on amounts of fish I have caught and weather conditions. I plan on giving you a trip by trip description from now on when I’m fishing 

for the D.T.S. When I am after Petrale, English, Rex and etc. I will probably not 

bother you. 

I am pleased that industry is getting invoked in the surveys. Please give us some 

credibility at the meeting when we tell you how we see things! Don’t say all you 

fishermen are liars or when 

you have Ph. D’s you can talk to us. I have over 40 years in the industry. I started 

commercial fishing in 1957. 

The BC are all over the ocean, even into Canada which they are happy with us 

being on the small limits. More fish for them. 

If you don’t understand this letter or log data, please call us at 541–888–5796. 

I would like to have Rich Methot, Jean Rogers and Paul Corne come on my boat 

for one day to see what I say is the gospel truth. 

Thank you, 

TOM LEACH

Newport, OR, September 2, 1998

MARK SAELENS, MARK FREEMAN, 2040 SE Marine Science Dr.

The best available data from Pacfin (ORCA) 

To the PFMC on the Total Groundfish Landed Catch January through July, 1998

Dear Marks:

Please review: 

DOVER SOLE

Total 4054 (mt) delivered HG = 8955 (mt) 

579 (mt) per month times 12 = 6948 (mt) for year = 2007 (mt) short for the year 

= 22 percent under HG for the year. We need an increase of 215 percent per month 

to harvest the available HG available to us (21,500 lbs per month) for the last three 

months. 

579 mt per month x 9 = 5211 mt est. caught 

8955(mt)¥5211(mt) = 3744(mt) left for last three months 

3744/3=1248=215% = 21,500 pounds per month 

SABLEFISH

Total 917 mt delivered HG = 2282 mt 

313 mt per month x 12 months = 1572 mt for the year 

710 mt short for the year = 22% under HG for the year 

We need an increase of 280 percent per month to harvest the available HG available to us. 8400 pounds per month for the last three months 

131 mt per month x 9 = 1179 mt estimate caught 

2282mt –1179mt = ll03mt left for last three months 

1103mt/3months= 367mt = 280% =8,400 pounds 

90

LONGSPINE THORNYHEADS

Total 1175mt delivered 4123 HG 

168 mt per month x 12 months = 216 mt for the year 

2107 mt short for the year = 58l% under HG for the year 

We need an increase of 581% per month to catch the HG for the year. 25,850 per 

month for the last three months. 

168mt per month x 9 months= 1512 estimated catch 

4123mt¥1512mt = 2611 mt last three months 

2611mt/3 months = 870 mt = 51% = 25850 pounds per month 

SHORTSPINE THORNYHEADS

Total 629 mt delivered 1193 mt HG 

90mt per month x 12 months = 1080 mt for the year 

118 mt short for the year = 10% under the HG for the year 

We need to increase of 141% per month to catch the HG for the year 

2820 pounds per month for the last three months 

90mt per month x 9 months =810 mt estimated catch 

1193mt¥810mt = 383 mt last three months 

383mt/3 months = 127 mt = 141%= 2820 pounds per month 

WIDOW ROCKFISH

All gear= 1882 HG 4276

18827 = 269x9 = 2421

4276¥ 2421 = 1855/3=618 mt per month = 229% increase in all fisheries 

YELLOWTAIL

All gear 1654.8mt HG =3118

1654/7 = 236x9 2124

3115¥2124=994/3=331 per month= 140% increase 

CANARY

All gear 898.6 HG= 968

898.6/7= l28x9= 1152

968¥l152= –184/3= –61 = –47%

1. As you are charged to see that the harvest guidelines are to be followed and 

not overfished, it seems you would see to it that we (industry) would have limits set high enough to be able to catch the HG when you have set the limit 

too low for us to reach the HG and fish will not be harvested and left in the 

ocean. 2. Things would not be quite so bad for industry if we could at least catch the 

HG of each specie after all the cuts that have been handed down to us over 

the last 5 years. 

Boats tuna fishing in the months of August and September and in December, 

some trawl boats go crabbing. We could easily catch the LS out in the deep 

without many problems on the SS limits. 

3. Last year we left 72,771,924 pounds of harvestable fish on the table. This year, 

we will leave 4942 mt DTS if the limits are not increased. We need to increase 

the limits in 1999 so we don’t have this same problem again. We also had this 

problem last year. 

4. Out of 16553 mt DTS we left 4952 mt; we left 29.9 percent of the HG because 

of the low limits. 

Coos Bay, OR, August 21, 2000

Hon. PETER DEFAZIO, 

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen DeFazio:

I am writing on behalf of my town, its economy and its resources. There has been 

a major issue in your state since the 1980s. Everyone has put in time dealing with 

the problem caused by government agencies. That problem is a factor that could destroy Oregon’s economy, businesses and life as well as people. 

This matter is in regard to Dr. Richard Methot and his model builder and how 

data points are used or not used depending on the desired outcome the government 

wants to push. This is also about how industry has been treated by these agencies 

while they manage the fisheries. Time is running short as are budgets and tempers. 

What did congress set as actual scientific data with regards to assessments and 

the collection data to manage the economy of the ocean? We need to spell out what 

91

is legal scientific data and what is required research to correctly manage our ocean’s natural resources. It has become apparent that without guidance from a higher authority, NMFS will continue to use science that is unaccountable to manage our 

fisheries which has lead us into the disaster we now face. 

Congress delegated agencies that were to include public and industry. But when 

you try to be a part of the process, you’re degraded and called liars and told to shut 

up, or to get a PH D and then they will talk to you. Did congress factor the years 

of experience and knowledge some of these industry people have and the vital, longterm oceanic information they possess? Or did congress leave it up to NOAA, NMFS 

and the Councils to figure out what data and in what quantities were needed to 

manage this resource correctly? 

What is industry’s role in fishery data and management? Why hasn’t congress 

forced the use of long-term fishermen knowledge to be used in connection with scientific data to manage our fisheries? Why are our fishery data gathered and managed by people who spend maybe an hour a year on a fishing boat instead of gathering some knowledge of the ocean from people that spend hundreds of hours at sea 

every year? Fishermen have far more understanding and knowledge of the ocean 

then the fifty people on these committees because they are true stakeholders in the 

management of this natural resource. There has been a constant ‘‘bashing’’ of the 

industry during meetings, in newspaper and television reports, by environmental 

groups via their web sites, government agency web sites and even congress with 

bills like 4046 which you co-sponsored. Is congress willing to wipe out a historical 

industry that has been here since before Jesus? 

Why has this accountable science been allowed to go on without congress stepping 

forward to find out what was wrong with management practices and how to aid the 

industry in their effort to educate the managers for the betterment of everyone? The 

managing agencies have wrecked havoc for too long. The time is now for congress 

to step up to bat and set some parameters for science to follow. As elected officials, 

its your duty to represent the people. Those you represent want congress to see 2 

representatives from and for commercial industry and one mayor so they may explain how budgets will be massively affected and towns destroyed due to the deliberate attempt by Rick Methot and his model builder to control the ocean. 

Efforts to get Rick out on a boat at no cost for the purpose of data collection and 

observation has failed for over 5 years now. I have made the offer to Rick myself 

and so have others. Rick’s goal is to have congress allocate funds to build a fleet 

of research vessels. He resents industry input into the management process and his 

intent is apparent. The scientists say they can not find a way to incorporate industry data into the management process. Mv dogs are treated better then these agencies treat the industry and the public. I don’t own a boat but I attend meetings and 

see how things are done, hear the lies about data and how it is used or not used. 

Even Bob Schoning who was supposed to bring industry and agencies together favors the agencies and misleads industry about their data. 

Oregon can’t afford to loose 50 percent more boats based on poor and mishandled 

surveys and data for which the peer review declares to be no good. Did congress 

read this vital document? If no, then why haven’t they? And if they did, why didn’t 

they stop the fraudulent surveys and come to industry and allow them to prove the 

real status of stocks and quality of life in the ocean? 

It is quite clear that these agencies have had no reason to do a good job as long 

as they collect their pay and congress doesn’t question too much about the ocean. 

But we, as a whole, feels it is time congress heard the truth as industry has made 

many attempts to try and control the damage done under these government agencies. 

So in conclusion Congressmen DeFazio, we ask you to let your fellow congress 

people that the people from your state demand to be heard before these meetings 

go any further. Because the data is biased, untrue and full of lies for one reason 

and because of one man, Rick Methot. The reason to gain fame and manage a fleet 

of vessels from congressional allocations. 

It time the tables are turned and industry is allowed to prove to congress and 

America its regard for the ocean and its stocks. This is not an unfair request. After 

all, Mr. Methot has had more then his time to mislead America and congress. People want their turn at bat to show America they did not destroy the ocean or its 

economic future. 

So we assume you will do your duty to those who elected you and who trust you 

to defend the honor of your state and restore hope to its communities and the working class. Congress needs to know the major factors effecting the economic loss of 

the west coast fishing fleet. 

I would like to invite you to our town hail meeting on Friday August 25 from 1 

PM to 6 PM because we consider this meeting vital to out existence in the future. 

92

Sincerely, 

DONNA LEACH

Thank you on behalf of my Mayor JoAnne Verger, my town and the working class. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: 

My name is Steve Davis and I operate the F/V Sea Blazer out of the Columbia 

River. 

I have been involved in the fishing industry all of my life—since sitting on the 

anchor coil behind the mast of a 36’ double ender while my stepfather gaffed salmon 

from the cockpit. During this time most of the management that I have seen has 

been mismanagement, from the near total elimination of some fisheries to darn near 

starvation seasons or limits on others, which is what you are and have been doing 

to the trawl fleet for the past 10–15 years. 

The lack of correct and current data has lead to imposing limits and restrictions 

which are causing more and more waste of good product. Fish and shellfish are not 

and never have been anchored to one spot, they have fins and tails to move around 

with. What is in one area one year may not be there the next, a lot of them come 

and go to different areas and have cycles of moving. Myself and I’m sure my fellow 

fisherman have seen this. We are required by law to keep logs but I see no evidence 

of their use, we are out on the ocean and see what is going on and it is a ridiculous 

waste. 

I do not understand how you as a committee and the GMT, with no PRACTICAL 

EXPERIENCE in the Industry feel you can govern and regulate those of us who do. 

We are working harder trying not to catch fish now than when we could! 

We (the fishermen) individually and as a group have more than enough years experience to be considered EXPERTS OR PROFESSIONALS in our field, but since 

degrees are not given for our years of involvement our voices and knowledge seem 

to go unheard. I feel it is time for you to quit sitting at computers trying to make 

up formulas that are not even based on factual information and start LISTENING 

to what’s being said by the people who are actively involved in this industry.

Senator WYDEN. Let’s go now to Mr. John Griffith. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN GRIFFITH, COMMISSIONER,

COOS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for holding this hearing on the Oregon Coast. My name is John Griffith. I’m a Coos 

County Commissioner. The other members of the Coos County 

Board of Commissioners are here. I’ve seen some others County 

Commissioners here before at this hearing today. 

The reason I think the County government is very interested in 

this is that these are Oregon Coast families. They’re part of our 

economy. And as it was mentioned, we don’t have any throw-away 

economies. 

This was brought up, the comments I want to make, somewhat 

today. It was touched on. But I’d like to go into a little bit more. 

I ask today that you consider my request that the incoming Presidential Administration create an executive order to nullify Executive Order 13158 by the current Presidential Administration. 

Executive Order 13158 establishes Marine Protected Areas and 

a network of MPAs. In my opinion and in those of the scientists 

I’m aware of who has given them, there’s no science exists to create 

a network of MPAs, as envisioned by Executive Order 13158. Not 

enough is known about the ocean or the effectiveness of the MPAs 

to create a network of them. Furthermore, although there is limited evidence that marine bio increases in MPAs, there is only 

speculative circumstantial inference that MPAs increase marine bio 

outside of the marine protected areas. 

93

Oregon has many areas now that are not fished with bottom-encountering trawl gear. The entire territorial sea of Oregon is a de 

facto MPA. Several hard bottom areas also run fish by trawl gear, 

adding many more square miles to that category. Additionally, Oregon currently has five—there’s a few more—but five cable corridors that these five are off-limits to trawl gear for one mile on 

both sides of the cable out past the edge of the current fishing capability. An unknown number of cables would probably cross current fishing grounds in the future, adding to the off-limits square 

mileage. Furthermore, with the new minimum size foot ropes on 

trawl gear, many thousands of square miles of bottom off the Oregon Coast has become off-limits to bottom trawl fishing, which you 

noted in your questions to Rod Fujita. 

The desire of zealous preservationist groups and of the foundations that finance them in establishing MPAs off Oregon is not genuine for the protection of ocean resources, as they claim it is. Given 

that we have thousands of square miles of de facto protection areas 

off Oregon, their desire to designate MPAs by leaps and bounds can 

only be to give them leverage in bringing litigation against legitimate issues of marine environment. By having designated MPAs, 

they can cite any and all uses in the MPA and outside of it that 

they don’t like as having a possibly deleterious effect on the MPA 

and move a court to shut down those uses. 

With ever-growing restrictions on our commercial and sport fishing and the negative results they have on our economy and our 

communities that depend at least in part on fishing, I call on Congress and the new Presidential Administration to relieve us of the 

burden of poorly contrived, unscientific, and politically motivated 

Executive Order 13158. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN GRIFFITH, COMMISSIONER, COOS COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS

Committee members: 

My name is John Griffith. I am a Coos County, Oregon, commissioner and an 

ocean person. My comments are my own, and are not necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to the other two members of the Coos County Board of Commissioners. 

I ask today that you consider my request that the incoming Presidential Administration create an executive order to nullify Executive Order 13158 by the current 

Presidential Administration. Executive Order 13158 establishes Marine Protected 

Areas and a network of MPAs. 

In my opinion and in those of every scientist I am aware of that has given one, 

no science exists to create a network of MPAs as envisioned by Executive Order 

13158. Not enough is known about the ocean, or the effectiveness of MPAs to create 

a network of them as envisioned by Executive Order 13158. Furthermore, although 

there is limited evidence that marine biota increases in MPAs, there is only speculative, circumstantial inference that MPAs increase marine biota outside of MPAs. 

Oregon has many areas now that are not fished with bottom-encountering trawl 

gear. The entire Territorial Sea of Oregon is a de facto MPA. Several hard bottom 

areas also are unfished by trawl gear, adding many more square miles to that category. Additionally, Oregon currently has five undersea cable corridors that are offlimits to trawl gear for one mile on each side of the cable, out past the edge of current fishing capability. An unknown number of cables will probably cross current 

fishing grounds in the future, adding to the off-limits square mileage. 

Furthermore, with the new minimum size of footropes on trawl gear, many thousands of square miles of the marine bottom off Oregon has become off-limits to bottom-trawl fishing. 

94

The desire of zealous preservation groups, and of the foundations that finance 

them, in establishing MPAs off Oregon is not genuine for the protection of ocean 

resources, as they claim it is. Given that we have thousands of square miles of de 

facto protection areas off Oregon, their desire to designate MPAs by metes and 

bounds can only be to give them leverage in bringing litigation against legitimate 

uses of the marine environment. 

By having designated MPAs, they can cite any and all uses in the MPA and surrounding the MPA that they don’t like as having a possibly deleterious effect on the 

MPA, and move a court to shut down those uses. 

With ever growing restrictions on our commercial and sport fishing industry, and 

the negative results they have on our economy and our communities that depend, 

at least in part, on fishing, I call on Congress and the new Presidential Administration to relieve us of the burden of the poorly contrived, unscientific, and politically 

motivated Executive Order 13158. 

Thank you for your consideration, and for holding this field hearing on the Oregon 

coast. 

JOHN GRIFFITH

Senator WYDEN. All right. Thank you very much, John. We will 

look at your ideas there. 

Mr. Peter Huhtala, is he here? All right. Onno Husing. 

STATEMENT OF ONNO HUSING, DIRECTOR,

OREGON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HUSING. Thank you, Senator. Again, Onno Husing, Director 

of the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. 

For the record, I remember sitting with you on this stage 2 years 

ago listening to the some of the commitments, not seeing they’ve 

been followed through; interesting to learn there’s things above the 

line and below the line. I ask you to look a little more into that. 

We see it at the state level, too, things get above the line and below 

the line. 

The folks—you mentioned the folks from GAO came out here, 

and they’re going to ask hard questions. Your colleagues are going 

to ask you hard questions about fleet restructuring. When the GAO 

guys came out here, we had—in Newport—put them in a room 

with a bunch of folks, and we talked about some of the challenges 

of fleet restructuring. And it wasn’t the most coherent discussion. 

I think a lot of us were just hammering these ideas back and forth. 

And at the end of the day, I saw them leaving the room, and I 

smiled, and I waived at them. And I said, ‘‘Oh, don’t worry. You’ll 

figure this out.’’ And the two of them looked at me and said, ‘‘No. 

You’ll figure it out.’’ And they didn’t quite understand what we 

really wanted to do in those days. 

I think what Ralph Brown said is that every one of these programs need to be evaluated on their own merit and what we’re trying to do to look at specific circumstances. But if you walk away 

from here, one message I have is that everything becomes easier 

with fewer boats in the fleet. It’s not much more complicated than 

that. Trying to get absolute numbers on exactly how many boats, 

how much money, how it’s going to work all in advance I think is 

placing too great a burden on us. 

In this case, we need to get in the ballpark of lowering the number of boats, so that market forces can then pick up and take up 

the slack after that. I don’t think you would hold that—knowing 

every single detail in advance, we wouldn’t ask Proctor and Gamble 

to know exactly whether everyone’s going to buy the last tube of 

toothpaste before they came out with a new product. And we 

95

shouldn’t hold people to too high a standard on this fleet restructuring. Give us some money. We’ve got some brains and energy in 

this industry. We can figure out a way to make it work on the 

ground. But we don’t want to invest too little. And if we do, then 

it would be a waste. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Husing follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ONNO HUSING, DIRECTOR, OREGON COASTAL ZONE

MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

I want to thank the Senate Commerce Committee for holding this hearing today 

in Newport, Oregon regarding the ‘‘groundfish crisis’’ on the West Coast. By holding 

this hearing on the Oregon Coast, the Members of the Senate Commerce Committee 

can get a first hand look at the challenges facing fishing families and businesses 

here in Oregon. Please know many fishing families and businesses are also impacted in Washington State and California. It means a lot to us that you crossed 

the continent to be with us today. 

The past few years have been trying times for many people in the West Coast 

fishing industry. Individuals holding federal groundfish harvest permits have seen 

their harvest rates for groundfish plummet 10 percent or 15 percent each year for 

almost five years in a row. After several years of this crisis, federal fishery managers still can’t tell us when the cuts in groundfish are going to end. 

These cutbacks have taken an enormous toll on many families and businesses in 

coastal Oregon. We have seen people and businesses go broke. We’ve seen people 

leave the industry. Others struggle to stay on in the industry, steadily depleting 

their business and family resources, waiting to see how things are going to shake 

out. Some fish plants have already closed. There’s another group of folks in the 

West Coast fishing industry that are doing better during this groundfish crisis because they hold not just groundfish permits but other fishing permits, such as Pacific Whiting, Pacific Shrimp or Dungeness Crab, or, they have access to fisheries 

in Alaska. Still, the impacts of the groundfish cutbacks continue to ripple throughout the entire fishing industry. 

In Oregon, we’ve run out of new, major commercial fishing industry opportunities. 

In the past, if one fishery failed (or was steeply curtailed by the government), fishermen developed new fisheries. That’s not the case today. The problem is simple. 

There is far too much harvest capacity in the West Coast groundfish fleet due to 

the sharp federal cutbacks in West Coast groundfish quotas. 

I submit the challenge before us today is finding a way to downsize the West 

Coast fishing industry in the most rational and humane manner. I believe the federal government must partner with West Coast fishing communities to help us 

make it through this tough, historic transition. In my opinion, a federally funded 

fleet reduction program, in whole or in part, is the only realistic way to restructure 

the West Coast fishing industry and mitigate economic hardship in coastal communities. 

At present, many people are ‘‘trapped in the fishing industry’’. Why are they 

trapped? Well, for many years, people in the West Coast fishing industry used their 

boats and permits as retirement plans. In the past, you could always sell these assets—the vessels and the federal and state fishing permits—or, have someone else 

to work the boats. Prior to the groundfish crisis (about five years ago) individual 

limited entry groundfish permits sold for approximately $250,000. And, fishing vessels routinely sold for $500,000 to $750,000. Now, because of the over capacity, 

groundfish permits have lost most of their value and permits are a direct consequence of new, federal fishery management policies codified under the 1996 

Amendments to the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Act. Because the market for boats 

and permits on the West Coast has been virtually demolished by these new federal 

fishery policies, market forces alone can’t rescue the industry. 

In November 1999, after a ‘‘Fish Summit’’ with Senator Gordon Smith and other 

officials in Charleston, Oregon, a number of representatives of West Coast fishery 

organizations asked the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA) to 

help organize a three-state fishing industry working group to formulate a Groundfish Disaster Plan to help fishing families make it through the groundfish crisis. 

This working group, made up of very diverse interests, including members of the 

conservation community, put aside their differences and developed three major 

planks of a Groundfish Disaster Program platform:

96

• Community Assistance (to help individuals and families that wish to leave the 

fishing industry access retraining dollars and other community resources;

• Enhanced Fisheries Research (to finally get some better data on West Coast 

groundfish and other fisheries);

• Fleet Restructuring (to help the fishing industry rationally downsize so the size 

of the fleet matches the available resources).

And, since early 2000, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), has finally initiated a serious Strategic Planning exercise to start addressing the short 

and long term issues facing the West Coast fishing industry. Many of the people 

in our Three State Working Group participated in the PFMC’s strategic planning 

effort. The PFMC’s plan, however, remains quite conceptual in nature. A lot of hard 

work needs to be done to fill in the details of that Strategic Plan. 

During this past year, Congress took some good first steps to address the groundfish crisis. First, the $5 million in the FY 2000 Emergency Supplemental budget. 

Second, an additional $2.275 million for observer coverage in the FY 2001 budget. 

For these actions, we are deeply grateful. However, the work is far from complete. 

Again, here we are, almost five years into this West Coast groundfish crisis, and 

no one in the federal government can tell people in the fishing industry how much 

lower groundfish harvests are going to go. People in coastal communities feel like 

there’s a cloud of uncertainty hanging over their heads, year in and year out. The 

profound uncertainty makes business planning next to impossible and leaves people 

feeling embittered. 

I urge the members of the Senate Commerce Committee to work with us on a fleet 

restructuring plan that will put the West Coast fishing industry on a new footing. 

We should have learned from painful experiences with the downsizing in the timber 

industry in the West that we need to help the economic and social refugees of new 

federal conservation policies. It is the fair and smart thing to do. By working together, we can help coastal communities and coastal families adjust to these profound changes in federal policy. 

The members of the Senate Commerce Committee should know there’s a good future ahead for the fishing industry on the West Coast. It will be a different West 

Coast fishery—a fishery that is smaller and much more in tune with the conservation needs of the fishery resource. With the help of Congress, we can all arrive safely on that other shore.

97

Attachments 

Respectfully submitted by, 

ONNO HUSING, 

Director, OCZMA. 


116hus1.eps
98


116hus2.eps
99


116hus3.eps
100


116hus4.eps
101


116hus5.eps
102

Senator WYDEN. Very good. Jim Golden. 

STATEMENT OF JIM GOLDEN, ACTING DIRECTOR, MARINE

RESOURCES PROGRAM, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH 

AND WILDLIFE 

Mr. GOLDEN. Senator Wyden, thank you for coming and listening 

today. My name is Jim Golden. I’m the Acting Director of the Marine Resources Program here in Newport. I’m trying to fill Neal 

Coenen’s shoes since his appointment to the Governor’s Office. 

I think that perhaps Ralph Brown may have said it earlier today. 

I had to step out briefly. But in a discussion earlier this morning 


116hus6.eps 116hus7.eps
103

with Ralph, the solution rests on a three-legged stool here. And I 

had liked his term that—because there are three important elements. 

The information, the science needed to conserve and manage resources and species in their habitats is needed, and we need more 

of it. And I think that was heard in ample testimony today. I think 

the effort reduction to match the resource that we have is another 

key leg of the stool. We’ve heard that today. And the social and economic support for those transitioning out of the groundfish fisheries is also needed. And we—we’ve heard that several times today. 

With respect to No. 1, I think we do have some good partnerships 

with OSU, with Sea Grant, with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and with the fishing industry to partner together to improve the science needed to protect and manage our resources. I 

just want to say that we’re committed to improving that collaboration and those partnerships, and we look forward to National Marine Fisheries Service working with the industry and developing 

new partnerships, also in their planing and coordination of their 

research with state- and industry-funded research activities. 

With respect to No. 2, we support—and I support all of the comments that Neal made today with respect to effort reduction. And 

we also laud the industry’s efforts to try to accomplish this on their 

own and with support from others and from government. 

I have one issue with respect to No. 3. I recently started working 

with Ginny and Flaxen and others on the groundfish on disaster 

relief project. We do need approval of the state match that’s associated with research projects, new research projects, and efforts that 

are addressing the groundfish crisis. It’s not just—there’s three 

legs on the stool. One of them is in information. And I believe that 

we’ve tried to justify on a couple of occasions with National Marine 

Fisheries Services how these funds are being directed toward addressing the groundfish crisis and the needs for assessment. We 

think it makes real good sense to use those efforts in in-kind match 

with the federal dollars that we need. And I’ll—just for your record 

today, I’ll provide you with the copies of the spending plan and the 

two letters that we’ve written to Dr. Stephen Freese, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, encouraging them to give us some kind 

of a sign that this is Okay to do and that we can move ahead with 

the details of the spending plan. 

Again, thank you for coming today and listening to us. 

[Material provided by Mr. Golden follows:]

MATERIAL PROVIDED BY JIM GOLDEN, ACTING DIRECTOR, MARINE RESOURCES

PROGRAM, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

Portland, OR, September 22, 2000

Dr. STEPHEN FREESE, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Seattle, WA.

Dear Steve:

With the assistance of Oregon Sea Grant Extension Specialists Flaxen Conway 

and Ginny Goblirsch, we have prepared the enclosed request and spending plan for 

the FY 2000 emergency appropriation in response to the West Coast groundfish fishery disaster. 

104

As you are aware, the conservation measures and commensurate reductions in 

groundfish harvest opportunities in 1999 continued in 2000, and the latest stock assessments indicate further reductions will be necessary in 2001. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council’s draft Strategic Plan for groundfish calls for at least a 

50 percent reduction in fleet capacity to scale fishing back to match future expected 

harvests now that the fishery has gone through an extensive fishing down process. 

In recent years, many individuals and families have already had to make hard 

choices out of economic necessity and desperation. Council members and state fishery managers expect these conditions to persist during the foreseeable future. 

Federal appropriations for disaster relief are needed as soon as possible to assist 

those transitioning out of the industry. The $1,750,000.00 of federal funds will help 

provide the necessary support in direct benefits to qualified candidates to help them 

with the steps of the difficult process of leaving one’s livelihood, retraining, and 

transitioning to other jobs. The Department has identified appropriate match dollars 

and is prepared to commit its share of the $583,333.00 needed. Details of the different state match sources will be outlined in Oregon’s full grant proposal. Additional matching funds will also be available from Oregon Economic and Community 

Development Department, Oregon Sea Grant Extension, and Oregon Coastal Zone 

Management Association. 

I want to thank you in advance for consideration of this proposal for disaster relief. I look forward to working with you to implement this much-needed program. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES W. GREER, 

Director. 

CC: ROY HEMMINGWAY

DORIS PENWELL

FLAXEN CONWAY

GINNY GOBLIRSCH

NEAL COENEN

JIM GOLDEN

Spending Plan For FY 2000 Emergency Appropriation In Response to the 

Disaster in the West Coast Groundfish Fishery 

State of Oregon 

Situation 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), on behalf of the Secretary of 

Commerce, declared a commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

fishery on January 19, 2000. 

Congress appropriated funding of $5,000,000 in response to the disaster in the 

West Coast groundfish fishery. The states were specifically directed to use the funds 

to: 1) pay compensation to individuals who have suffered a direct negative impact 

from the West Coast groundfish fisheries disaster; 2) provide direct sustaining aid 

to such fishermen; and 3) provide assistance to communities that are dependent on 

the West Coast groundfish fisheries and have suffered losses from such disaster. 

Congress directed that the states of California, Oregon and Washington divide the 

funds between the three states in proportion to the impact of the disaster in each 

state. Discussions were held with the three State Fish and Wildlife Directors at the 

August 28–30, 2000 meeting of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and, 

with input from industry and congressional representatives, the states agreed to allocate the funds as follows: 35 percent each to California and Oregon, and 30 percent to Washington. This represents a sum of $1,750,000.00 to Oregon. A 25 percent 

($583,333.00) matching amount from Oregon is required to receive these funds. 

Oregon’s point of contact for its disaster aid program is James Greer, Director, 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The funds are to be administered by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service in cooperation with the Oregon Economic and 

Community Development Department and/or Oregon Employment Department, and 

Oregon Sea Grant Extension. 

Background 

In anticipation of the West Coast groundfish disaster declaration, a three-state 

committee was formed to recommend industry and community needs. This committee met throughout 1999 with leadership provided by Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. Further assistance was provided by Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Sea Grant Extension. The recommendations of this 

105

committee covered three major areas: 1) family and community assistance; 2) research and 3) fleet restructuring. 

The experience and expertise brought to this group by Oregon Sea Grant Extension addressed the family and community assistance portion of the recommendations. Since 1994, Oregon Sea Grant has provided funding for a unique peer outreach project called the Fishing Families Project (Project). The Project worked directly with fishing families in Oregon’s port communities to provide practical information on ways to deal with the economic, personal and social stresses that are a 

part of the commercial fishing industry. An important component of this project was 

the Fishing Family Coordinators. They were fishermen’s wives who lived in coastal 

ports and, together with Sea Grant personnel, were able to identify and direct 

project activities that directly addressed needs and interests of fishing families. 

Needs identified by the families included budgeting in a cyclic industry; debt consolidation/taxes; diversification/business management; fishing marriage/absentee 

partner; coping skills/stress/anger management; grants/direct aid; health insurance 

and communication skills. The Project also worked directly with community resource providers and agencies to enhance their understanding of the needs of fishing 

families and address barriers fishing families met when attempting to obtain services. Additionally, the Project brought information to fishing industry families about 

resources available in their communities to help with their business and family 

needs. The Project also provided family members with training in forming or 

strengthening effective support networks. This training bolstered three Oregon fishermen’s wives organizations and helped to form the region-wide, multi-gear, multifisheries network called the Women’s Coalition for Pacific Fisheries. 

The success of the Project’s outreach model led to discussions in 1998 with community resource providers about how to incorporate peer outreach into fishery-related disaster relief plans. A team of state and local partners worked collaboratively 

to come up with a possible approach. With the support of the team, the Community 

Services Consortium in Newport initiated a small pilot program in January 1999. 

In fall of 1999, the plan was finalized for a coast wide pilot program in response 

to the anticipated West Coast groundfish disaster. Beginning in April 2000, the 

state of Oregon provided funding for a 7-month, coast-wide pilot program called 

‘‘Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program’’ (GDOP), a continuing program that promotes existing training resources and community programs. The GDOP is administered by the Oregon Sea Grant Extension Program with funding support from the 

Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, Oregon Rapid Response Program, and Oregon Sea Grant Extension. 

Innovative Response 

The purpose of the GDOP is to create, deliver and evaluate a peer outreach program that assists people in accessing support, resources and training and assists 

community resource providers in effective outreach through improved communication to this population who are in need of support. The audience includes people in 

the groundfish fishing business including fishermen, business partners (wives), fish 

plant workers, industry support service workers (gear stores, fuel docks, etc.), 

charterboat workers and local, state and federal resource providers. 

The leadership team of Flaxen Conway, OSU Department of Sociology, and Ginny 

Goblirsch, Marine Extension agent (and fisherman’s wife), both with Oregon Sea 

Grant Extension, will continue to direct the GDOP. In addition, GDOP employs a 

full time Program Coordinator, Connie Kennedy. The GDOP Coordinator, a fisherman’s wife, works with people in groundfish fishing businesses who want to transition into the future industry as well as with those who want to transition out of the 

industry. Six GDOP Outreach Peers (much like the Fishing Family Coordinators, 

closely associated with the fishing industry and in the transition process themselves) work part-time in seven regions along the coast informing and mentoring 

people in groundfish fishing businesses who want to transition, out of the industry. 

They also provide information about community support options for those remaining 

in the industry. An Advisory Committee, with members from the Oregon Rapid Response Program, local Workforce Investment Act (WIA) service delivery areas, Oregon Economic and Community Development, Oregon Employment Department 

(OED), Oregon Sea Grant Extension and the GDOP Program Coordinator, provides 

guidance to the GDOP. 

In May 2000, the Governor convened a meeting of state agency heads as well as 

community and industry leaders. The purpose of this meeting was to brief agencies 

on the groundfish crisis; to assess the crisis and make recommendations as to how 

each state agency can best direct their services to help those needing assistance; 

and to identify barriers to services. The GDOP has also hosted port meetings with 

local service providers to brief them on the crisis, address industry barriers to servVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
106

ices and identify support services available. The outreach peers mentor fishermen, 

fishermen’s wives, processing plant workers, and others directly associated with the 

groundfish industry that want to leave the industry. A key service is job-training 

programs for dislocated workers administered through WIA. In the short time period the GDOP has been operating, 97-odd industry members have been directly 

contacted, 52 were referred to agencies/resources, and 29 are now enrolled in services. 

The State of Oregon proposes to support the continuation of the successful 

Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program past the pilot ending date of October 31, 

2000. In this way, the state will not be creating a new program and development 

expenses will be kept to a minimum. Except for the Program Coordinator salary, 

all funds will go directly to people impacted by the disaster. The state supports that 

no administrative costs be incurred for this FY 2000 Emergency Appropriation.

Lessons Learned and Future Needs 

Three key things we’ve learned are substantiated by the success of the program. 

First, we have learned that working collaboratively to create this program has resulted in a response that is innovative and community-driven. Second, we’ve learned 

that THE major barrier to fishermen and others interested in transitioning out 

of the industry via job training is the lack of income during training. Most are considered self-employed, few fishermen/wives are covered by state unemployment and 

there exist no other sources of income for them while in training. Third, we’ve 

learned that peer outreach works.

State funding for the Outreach Coordinator ends on October 31, 2000. We believe 

that the Oregon Rapid Response Program will continue to provide funding for the 

outreach peers for as long as they can and they see benefits to their programs. Oregon Sea Grant Extension will continue to support GDOP project leaders Conway 

and Goblirsch. 

Because of the previous successes with peer outreach through the Fishing Families Project and the pilot GDOP, the State of Oregon proposes to use Oregon’s share 

of the disaster assistance funds to: 1) continue supporting the GDOP (not start a 

new program) through funding the Program Coordinator, and 2) provide transition 

income (TI) to industry members who want to transition out of the industry and 

who have accessed resources to help them develop a WIA/OED training plan for 

their future. 

Target Audience for Transition Income 

As previously stated, the target audience for the GDOP includes anyone directly 

associated with the groundfish industry that has suffered significant impacts (loss 

of revenue) as a result of the groundfish crisis. This includes commercial fishing 

businesses (vessel owners, operators and crew); their business partners (wives); fish 

plants (owners, managers and workers); charterboats (owners, operators and crew); 

and all support services (workers in gear stores, fuel docks and the like). 

How many people are we talking about here? Because of the unusual rolling nature of this crisis and the various mechanisms people might or might not have to 

cope, it is impossible to accurately determine the number of people who might seek/

need services. This is not a plant closure where a set number of people know they 

will be unemployed at a specific time. We do, however, have data on the numbers 

of commercial fishing vessels in the State of Oregon having permits for groundfish 

or participating in the open access fishery. We also have data on other permits those 

vessels/owners have which can, in some cases, help to mitigate the impact of the 

crisis. Therefore, we estimate that 108 commercial fishing vessels/businesses are at 

high risk of bankruptcy and another 79 vessels/businesses are at moderate risk (depending on their success in other fisheries). This represents 40 percent of the 

groundfish fleet in the State of Oregon and an estimated 400 people. Since not all 

will seek or need services but others in the industry will, our best guess at this time 

is that the GDOP needs to be responsive to the needs of 400 applicants. The numbers could go much higher if fish plant closures occur. The numbers could go lower 

if conditions permit success in other fisheries in which some of these businesses 

might also be involved. 

Our target audience for transition income is 220 (roughly half of the 400 applicants that have no access to other income/assistance). We are estimating that 35 

percent of these applicants will be single; 65 percent will have families. 

Spending Plan 

GDOP Program Coordinator 

$66,000.00 is needed to support the full-time Program Coordinator for 12 months. 

Included in this amount are salary and associated expenses (such as travel, phone, 

107

fax, email, postage and mailing) for a 12-month period. The Program Coordinator 

would continue the work as previously described. 

Funding would flow from NMFS directly to Oregon Sea Grant Extension in the 

amount of $66,000.00 for a 12-month period. No administrative costs (overhead) will 

be incurred during this period. 

Transition Income 

$1,684,000.00 would be used to establish a fund for transition income (TI) for individuals (a type of individual TI account) to cover living expenses for those 

transitioning out of the industry. TI will only be available for applicants who have 

developed a WIA/OED training plan for their future in non-fishery related employment. Criteria for this TI assistance distribution process and the assistance are: 

Design a process that is flexible and readily changed when improvements can be 

identified. 

NMFS disbursements should be made at least quarterly ($421,000 per quarter 

with the first allocation up front) so that the entities that administer this program 

do not have to use state funds and process reimbursement requests. 

Qualified applicants must certify that they are part of the groundfish industry either as a fisherman, business partner (wife), fish plant worker, charter boat worker, 

or support service worker and have been negatively impacted by the groundfish crisis. TI assistance will be limited to 6 months to 9 months or less per applicant depending on the job-training plan established. 

TI assistance will be based on a simple income verification process. For example, 

our recommendation is that an applicant with a family could receive $1,500/month 

if they had no other access to support (unemployment insurance). If the applicant 

has access to other support (unemployment under $1500/month) their TI allotment 

would be only the difference bringing them up to $1,500/month. For a single/nonmarried applicant, the allotment would be $1,000/month (with the same situation 

regarding access to other support). The recipients would be responsible for self-certifying their continued participation in the training plan and their need for this TI 

(through calling in and/or filling out forms on a bi-weekly or monthly basis). 

Final qualifying criteria and program administration arrangements will be specified in the State of Oregon grant application to NMFS. 

Funding will flow from NMFS directly to the Oregon Employment Department or 

to the Oregon Employment Department via the Oregon Economic and Community 

Development Department in the amount of $1,684,000.00. No administrative costs 

(overhead) will be incurred during this period. 

State Matching Contributions 

Since the commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast groundfish was declared 

on January 19, 2000, the State of Oregon has provided (and will continue to provide) 

a combination of in-kind and state direct matching funds in the amount of 

$583,333.00. 

Suggestions for State Match: 

The State of Oregon will document in its grant application to NMFS both in-kind 

and, possibly, direct matching funds. Here, the state has a number of options it will 

pursue:

1. Program, Support Development and Fishery Research Contributions

If expenditures since January 19, 2000 are allowed, the state can document up 

to $83,000.00 of in-kind expenditures developing a disaster relief response related 

to direct assistance and income support. In addition, the state can document approximately $124,000.00 in funding explicitly reviewed and appropriated by the 

Oregon legislature for groundfish research in response to the disaster. These 

funds for research have already been reviewed in a Groundfish Research Plan 

submitted to the Department’s legislative oversight committee and approved for 

projects initiated for the Spring and Fall of 2000, and the Spring of 2001. 

These projects focus on the areas of maturity by catch, gear and genetic studies 

designed to improve stock assessments. The amount identified includes only the 

amounts expected to be paid directly to fishermen for at-sea contract charters and 

do not include the Department’s personnel services or overhead costs. These costs, 

if allowed, would represent an additional $247,000.00 in direct matching expenditures. The total above represents a matching amount of $454,000.00. 

The state can also document $35,000.00 of direct matching funds for the GDOP 

Program Coordinator salary and expenses from May 1, 2000 until October 31, 

2000 from the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. 

108

2. Expected In-Kind Contributions 

Other in-kind contributions following grant approval are expected throughout calendar year 2001 in amounts similar to program development costs (i.e. 

$83,000.00). 

3. Emergency Appropriations Board Direct Allocation 

The state’s third option for match is to approach the legislature’s Emergency Appropriations Board for a direct allocation. In this event, the direct payments for 

those individuals transitioning out of the groundfish fishery would extend Oregon’s proposed program.

Suggestions for Timeline 

The Pacific Fishery Management Council has just announced further harvest reductions expected for the fishing year beginning January 1, 2001. The State of Oregon’s objective is to bring this assistance program online at that time. Our goals 

and timeline are as follows:

1. October 15, 2000 or before: Appropriation Committee release of funds to NMFS. 

2. October 15, 2000 to November 30, 2000: State of Oregon grant application process to NMFS (with Oregon documentation). 

3. December 30, 2000: NMFS grant approval. 

4. January 15, 2001: Start Oregon program delivery. 

Findings for Supplemental Appropriations Guidance and MSA S.312 (a) 

Compliance 

Authorized Appropriations Purposes in Bill and Report Language 

The State of Oregon’s proposed spending plan will provide direct compensation to 

individuals and families for lost income resulting from significantly reduced fishing 

opportunities. The state’s program intends to sustain this aid over a period of time 

needed and suitable to obtain job training for alternative occupations outside the 

fishing industry. 

In the event of additional, larger appropriations, the state’s program could be expanded to compensate for the other types of losses and community assistance programs such as job development. 

MSA Section 312(a) requires that disaster assistance prevent a future fishery failure and assist a community or restore the fishery and assist a 

community. 

The State of Oregon program seeks to prevent a future fishery failure and assist 

a community. The usual declining fishery cycle often results in fishers waiting for 

an upturn in one fishery by shifting to other fisheries or related activity. While this 

may have worked in the past, present circumstances indicate no flexibility exists in 

other major West Coast fisheries (salmon, crab, and shrimp). Therefore, the state’s 

program seeks to permanently remove fishers from the industry. This will result in 

less competition for the limited remaining jobs in fisheries and prevent future conflict and failure. 

In addition, the community of individuals and families dependent on the fishing 

industry will be aided directly through training for alternative occupations. The 

community at large will also benefit directly and indirectly by having displaced 

workers prepare to continue as productive employed members of the community. 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

Newport, OR, January 8, 2001

Dr. STEPHEN FREESE, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Seattle, WA.

Dear Steve:

Thank you for reviewing the spending plan we submitted to you for the FY 2000 

emergency appropriation in response to the West Coast groundfish fishery disaster. 

It is my understanding clarification and further justification is needed in order for 

National Marine Fisheries Service to accept the proposed $583,333 state match. 

Specifically, we understand you need documentation on how the match funds were 

used as a part of a total program to address the groundfish disaster. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, declared a commercial fishery failure in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery on January 19, 2000. NMFS also recognized this disaster was years in the making. The PaVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
109

* The attachments referred to were not available at the time this hearing went to press. 

cific Fishery Management Council recommended reductions in harvest along with 

other conservation measures to address significant resource declines during the 

1997–2000 Council meetings. The State of Oregon also recognized the fishery to be 

in a state of crisis as well and began to take steps to address fishery and resource 

concerns. In our view, the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Fishery Strategic Plan and Research and Data Needs Assessment’’ provide much of the overall 

framework for addressing the groundfish crisis. These plans speak to the need to 

reduce the fleet size, provide for fishery transition, and improve information used 

in managing the resource. Groundfish research planned and executed by the Department addresses the need for improving science used in groundfish management and 

is responsive to the Council/NMFS Research Program. Most of ODFW’s projects involving groundfish are reviewed for scientific merit and approved by National Marine Fisheries Service when they are of the scale requiring Letters of Acknowledgement. 

In the arguments that follow, we begin with an initial response to the groundfish 

crisis by a Legislative Emergency board, the legislative intent of SB 5511, proceed 

to the Department’s reports before Oregon Legislature tracking committees, and end 

with the Department’s plan to address the groundfish crisis. 

State Funding for the Groundfish Disaster 

• Oregon Legislative Emergency Board—January 1998 provided S 120,000 to enhance research work on commercial groundfish fisheries in response to the 

groundfish crisis (attachment 1)*.

• During the 1999–2001 biennial budget building process, we requested $1,021,000 to improve groundfish stock assessments and fishery monitoring in 

response to the groundfish crisis. This package would have funded at-sea and 

dockside fishery services for commercial fishing activity. The legislative subcommittee eliminated the package (Budget Note—attachment 2)*.

• Representative Thompson [a commercial fisherman] worked to restore the package by explaining its need to fellow legislators. SB 5511 was an omnibus appropriations bill containing $500,000 in state General Fund support for groundfish 

research. Additional Budget notes were added to track the groundfish crisis, visa-vis commercial fish fund and research directed toward improving information 

needed to manage our groundfish resources (Budget Note—attachment 3* and 

SB 5511 budget details, attachment 4)*. 

Reports to Legislature 

• The budget notes were attached to our 1999–2001 approved budget by the Legislature resulted in recent reports to the Legislature. A legislative subcommittee 

directed the Department to focus the funding for additional Marine Resource 

Program efforts on at-sea and dockside monitoring and research toward supporting analysis and stock assessment work in coordination with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon State University, and the commercial fishing 

industry. In addition, we were directed to report before the Subcommittee and 

Legislative Emergency Board on commercial fish fund revenue projections, need 

for additional limitation, and on use of funds as related to the groundfish industry.

• We reported before the Subcommittee, January 2000 and October 2000, and the 

Emergency Board November 2000. In our January report, we described a detailed spending plan for groundfish monitoring and research (attachment 5). In 

November, we appraised the Emergency Board of the need for additional, funding limitation for Groundfish Disaster Assistance using the state and federal 

funds outlined in the spending plan submitted to NMFS. 

Marine Resources Program Action Plan 

• The action plan presented before our Department’s Resource Management 

Team June of 2000 states:

‘‘It is Marine Resource Program’s (MRP) goal to increase the quality and quantity of stock assessments and biological information through improved at-sea 

and dockside sampling programs and through carefully designed research 

projects.’’

• The projects identified for in-kind match find most of their funding from the SB 

5511 appropriations bill which provided new General Fund dollars for groundVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
110

fish related monitoring and research. Projects thus identified and described in 

the plan were new or expand existing capability, address the groundfish crisis, 

and involve the commercial fishing industry.

Steve, our agency requests consideration of all related state funded activities addressing the groundfish disaster including new research directed at improving information used to manage groundfish resources as match for federal disaster relief dollars outlined in the spending plan. We will document qualifying expenditures of 

funds during the pre-award period you mentioned and those since January l9th, and 

will continue to document state fund expenditures directed at the development and 

implementation of a disaster relief plan, again including new research. Our agency 

has been responding to this problem for over three years. While we could not anticipate that a disaster would be declared in January of 2000, we certainly knew there 

was a crisis in the making as NMFS has pointed out. 

We will be happy to review details of proposed state match with you and look forward to a favorable decision from your agency. 

Sincerely, 

JIM GOLDEN

Director (acting)

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. Very helpful. 

Terry Thompson? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY THOMPSON 

First of all, I think you need to take credit for the fact that in 

the marine survey business we wouldn’t be where we are without 

your help. And your staff has done a spectacular job briefing you 

on the problems of this industry. 

There is three things that I’d like to touch on that weren’t 

touched by previous speakers. First is we have a lack of baseline 

data in oceanography. That can be done by supplement of weather 

buoys with oceanographic information that can be taken from the 

subsurface that can create a baseline data on this coast. It would 

be relatively inexpensive. It’s a matter, though, of somebody in 

Congress making that push. 

The second area is targeted surveys. One of the problems I see 

as a fisherman is that we haven’t gone out—and we’ve done a flat 

survey of the bottom. And if you were to take this stage and say 

this is the fish you’re going to survey and the fish like to live on 

your table, we have a problem. What we’ve done is gone out and 

surveyed, through National Marine Fisheries surveys, all the flat 

areas. We have to go back and target these areas for specific species, canary rockfish, and ling cod. That will show that we have a 

larger stock than we have. The fishermen keep coming in and saying there’s a stock availability. And our surveys aren’t showing it. 

We have to change our survey techniques or establish new a new 

survey techniques in that area. 

Acoustic surveys will help. That requires money. That’s an area 

that I hope National Marine Fisheries Service receives the money. 

Third, the area that I want to do what other people have said 

is the area of buyback; that’s where we should be spending our 

money. We need to develop this buyback and move it forward. 

There is one other suggestion for the National Marine Fisheries 

Service that I would like to see moved forward. And that’s a closer 

collaboration with Canada, because many of our species have 

crossed the boundary up there. And with your direction in that 

area, I think that we can work out some of our problems. 

111

Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Terry, thank you very much. Very helpful. 

Mr. Leipzig? 

STATEMENT OF PETER LEIPZIG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

FISHERMEN’S MARKETING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LEIPZIG. Good afternoon, Senator. 

For the record, my name is Pete Leipzig. I’m the Executive Director of the Fishermen’s Marketing Association. And I represent 

groundfish and shrimp trawl fishermen in Washington, Oregon, 

and California. 

You heard a lot about the groundfish disaster here today and 

over the last number of months. You’ve also heard that there is rebuilding plans for some of these species that have been declared to 

be overfished. What hasn’t really been mentioned, though, is that 

some of those rebuilding plans are going to be taking a very long 

time, ten to a hundred years, in some cases. Canary rockfish, 

there’s roughly a fifty-year rebuilding at a constant harvest. That 

means for the next fifty years the quota will be the same as it is 

this year. That means that what we have this year is basically 

what we’re going to see for the next fifty years. 

So our disaster should not be thought of in terms of just some 

sort of transient problem that we hope will improve and will be 

going away. It’s going to be here forever for most of us. It’s going 

to be long—go on long beyond our—our livelihood in this business. 

I have been viewed by some as somewhat as the poster child for 

the issue of fleet buyback and restructuring. So it’s no surprise that 

I would speak to you today about urging you to consider some legislation on the federal level to move such a program forward. I have 

been active, along with others in the industry, to try to develop a 

consensus within the fleet—not just groundfish, but the other fisheries—that everybody can agree to, so there is no controversy associated with the proposal. That proposal has been circulated with 

congressional staff. And whether they have shared that with you, 

I do not know. But I would hope that you would have the opportunity to talk with them and to give consideration to carrying such 

legislation. 

Ralph Brown did mention the GAO report. I won’t mention that. 

The issue of ITQs, I just want to point out that it’s very, very compatible with buyback. And as Onno Husing mentioned, with a 

smaller fleet many other activities become much, much simpler. An 

ITQ system will be controversial with the initial allocation of 

shares. If we have a smaller fleet, the level of controversy surrounding that is going to be minimized. 

And last—and I don’t want to degrade your concern with the 

amount of time that it’s taken for the delay in receiving the disaster funds, but I think I can one-up you on this one. In 1996——

Senator WYDEN. I’m not sure the people of our state benefit from 

competition of——

Mr. LEIPZIG. Well, just to share with this——

Senator WYDEN. I’d be glad to sacrifice——

Mr. LEIPZIG. In 1996, the Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which contained a provision, 312B, which was for indusVerDate Apr 24 2002 07:30 Nov 18, 2003 Jkt 087847 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\87847.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
112

try-funded buyback programs. And it took three-and-a-half years 

for the National Marine Fisheries Service to get that published. 

Senator WYDEN. Very good. 

Mr. LEIPZIG. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. We have been at it for just a little 

over 3 hours—3 hours and 15 minutes, I guess. It’s been extraordinarily helpful. I want to set the record clear on a couple of points. 

First, a special thanks to Senators Hollings and Senator McCain. 

This is a full Senate Commerce Committee hearing. In a 50/50 U.S. 

Senate, that cooperation is absolutely essential. The people of Oregon should be very appreciative of both Senator Hollings and Senator McCain for their help. 

I want to repeat the e-mail address to the Committee, margaretlspring@commerce.senate.gov. I want to thank Ms. Spring, 

who is here from the Democratic staff of the Committee; Stephanie 

Bailenson, who is here from the Republican staff. Three people 

from my office, Adrienne Froelich, who has has done extraordinarily good work in the fishing industry, is here behind me. 

Jason Daughn is here, who works on the Coast, and Mary 

Gautreaux, who works in the Eugene office. 

So suffice it to say, we have a lot to do here, folks, and we’ve gotten a lot of constructive suggestions. I will tell you, at the end of 

the day, it seems to me that folks on the Oregon Coast have a right 

to expect that the federal government will be a better, a more efficient, and more responsive partner, in terms of tackling these 

issues. I think everybody understands that these problems didn’t 

develop by osmosis, nor did they develop over night. What is essential is that we work together, and that the federal government be 

a good partner. 

We heard some very troubling accounts today, and I’m going to 

work with Senator Smith on a bipartisan basis to tackle these 

issues. It’s a great plus for Oregon that he’ll be joining the Committee. The record will stay open for another 10 days for folks to 

give their comments in writing. I thank everybody for taking time 

from their schedule. The Senate Commerce Committee is adjourned. 

(Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 4:16 p.m.) 

(113)

APPENDIX

ARGOS, INC. 

Newport, OR, February 14, 2001

Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Hollings:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the field hearing held on January 16, 

2001 in Newport, Oregon. I appreciate the Committee’s interest in these issues. 

I have been asked to respond to additional questions that were raised at or subsequent to the hearing. I hope that the following will be useful to you, and in the 

event that I can offer additional information, please contact me.

1. Capital Construction Fund. Is it outdated? Should it be eliminated? Any disadvantages to keeping the program? As a family who has used the fund in 

the past, how would eliminating the program affect our business?

The CCF program is outdated, but it should not be eliminated. If a goal of federal 

fisheries policy is to reduce capitalization in the fisheries, Congress needs to change 

the rules for use of the CCF accounts to allow use of the funds for what would currently be non-qualified withdrawals: rollovers into IRA accounts, purchase of individual quotas, or use in buyback programs. 

Still, CCF funds currently serve a valid purpose, one that many fishers will still 

want to access. Those who remain in the fisheries need make deposits to those accounts in order to fund vessel reconstruction projects, many of which relate to the 

safety of aging vessels , as much as increased capacity. Congress should understand 

that on the West Coast, virtually every fishery, both state and federal, is regulated 

by limited entry permits, which are endorsed with vessel length limits, and further 

restricted by length limits in the event of transfer. While length of a vessel alone 

does not necessarily serve to restrict capacity, without the appropriate length permits, fishers are not increasing vessel capacity. 

If the program were to be eliminated, our business could be negatively affected. 

At present, we may want to reconstruct our vessel to add a bulbous bow, which will 

provide a safer ride and greater stability in the extremely rough winter seas. In addition, we want to reconstruct the configuration of our fish hold. During crab season, 

crabs are held live in circulating sea water in the hold while at sea. If CCF funds 

were eliminated, and we were no longer able to use those funds for vessel reconstruction, we would be forced to try and borrow from a bank at high rates of interest, making it less likely the vessel’s stability could be improved, or at the very 

least, increasing the cost to the fisherman. 

In sum, we’d like to see the CCF still exist, but for those who wish to leave the 

fishery, give them the flexibility to do so, and provide incentives as well.

2. Permit Stacking in West Coast Fisheries. Voluntary? Mandatory? Effect on 

Small Businesses?

To answer this question in a way that will be of assistance to the Committee, 

it will be necessary to provide some background.

In the fixed gear sablefishery, there are currently 163 permits. There are 33 pot 

permits and 130 longline permits. There are 26 Tier 1 permits; 43 Tier 2 permits 

and 94 Tier 3 permits. Vessel length is not correlated to the poundage allocated to 

the permit; indeed, some of the smaller vessels have permits with the greatest 

poundage and the largest vessels have the least. There is a 68 foot longline vessel 

with a Tier 3 , or ‘‘bottom tier’’ permit; there is a 40 ft pot vessel with a Tier 1 

or ‘‘top tier’’ permit. It is tentatively estimated that in 2001 the poundage assigned 

114

to each tier will be reduced to a range of 57,000 lbs for a top tier to 15,000 lbs of 

fish for a bottom tier. As you can see, we are talking about a very small fishery. 

With voluntary stacking, the Council is implementing a program that will allow 

only up to 3 permits to be stacked on a vessel. The permits may also be unstacked, 

providing for free market transfers of permits. Permit holders may sell their permits 

for use on other vessels, or may lease them, generating income , or may buy or lease 

permits to add to their vessel’s capacity. Permit owners will be required to be on 

board the vessel fishing. 

To address your concern about ‘‘small boats,’’ please be aware that this is already 

a ‘‘small boat fishery.’’ A majority of the 164 vessels are 40–60 feet in length. Because the majority of the permits are in the bottom tier, ( and hence, least expensive) and because there is a limit on how many permits can be stacked on a vessel, 

preventing excessive consolidation, there is ample opportunity for vessels to access 

the fishery. 

The Pacific Council has no plan to mandate or require stacking in the fixed gear 

sablefish fishery. Although this will be the first year for stacking, and the results 

are yet to be seen, it is anticipated that many of the permits will stack, thereby 

condensing the fleet. It is highly likely that the Council’s intended results, a reduction in the fixed gear fleet, minimizing interaction by the longline fleet with other 

groundfish species that are overfished, and funded solely by industry itself, will 

occur. 

In regard to the trawl fishery, the Pacific Council, in its Long Range Strategic 

Plan, made mention of mandatory stacking in order to reduce capacity in that fleet. 

I believe there are over 240 vessels in that fleet. Trawl gear catches a variety of 

species, including some that are healthy stocks and some that have been declared 

overfished. The vessels all have the same trip limits and tend to be a somewhat 

larger boat fishery, ranging in size from 50 ft to 100 ft. The trawl fishery and the 

Pacific Council are considering a number of methods to reduce effort in this fleet. 

The main thrust of the fleet’s plan is a buyback program to remove vessels and all 

of a vessels’ permits, both state and federal, from the fishery. It is to be funded by 

both taxpayer dollars and a tax on vessel landings. It is controversial for a number 

of reasons:

1) It seeks to include the fixed gear sablefishery in the program. As a fixed gear 

sablefisher, who is already participating in an industry funded fleet reduction, I don’t want to pay for trawl buyback.

2) It seeks to tax the landings of state crab and shrimp fishermen on the West 

Coast , who also have groundfish permits, to pay for a program that removes 

only trawl vessels and their permits. As a crab and shrimp fisherman, I don’t 

want to pay for trawl buyback.

I believe that is in the context of the trawl fleet that the Council has discussed 

mandatory stacking of permits, in the event that buyback does not have fleet support or cannot be funded. In addition, the costs associated with it are astronomical. 

There are estimates of $50 million floating around, $25 million to be paid by the 

taxpayers and $25 million by fishermen. I don’t support the use of taxpayer dollars to bail out this industry, and I don’t support the imposition of a tax on earnings of some fishermen to buy others out. 

I hope I have addressed adequately the questions you have raised. If I can be of 

further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me. 

Very truly yours, 

MICHELE LONGO EDER

Æ